Sometimes you want too much, sometimes you are greedy: WI plaintiff’s lawyers are killing their income source.

Wisconsin law would kill outdoor recreation specifically skiing in the state

The plaintiff’s bar is attempting to change the law concerning the determination of fault in a trial. As the law stands now before an injured plaintiff can win a lawsuit they must prove that they are not the primary party responsible for their injuries. That means they have to convince a jury that they are less than 49% liable for their injuries. The jury then decides what percentage of fault lies with all of the parties. The damages awarded are then divided according to that percentage of fault.

If a plaintiff is found 20% at fault they win (more than 49%) and any damages are reduced by 20%. This issue is called comparative negligence. The jury compares the negligence between the parties and determines the percentage of fault. That percentage of fault then determines if the plaintiff wins anything and if so, how much they are awarded.

The plaintiff’s bar in Wisconsin wants to lower that percentage to 1%. This means if the jury finds that the plaintiff was anywhere from 99 to 1% at fault the plaintiff still wins.

Breathing is about the only thing you can do and not have someone else be at least partly responsible……….. wait there is air pollution.

This would allow every injured person no matter how they received their injuries to sue and recover money for their damages.

The good news is insurance costs will not go up. This will be because no insurance will be available. Insurance companies will just not offer insurance for any recreation program in Wisconsin.

See Insurance change could send Wisconsin ski areas downhill. For additional articles explaining the legal issues see Ski resort found partially liable for skier injuries from a jump

Event: Ski Season Kickoff Party 2009 to Benefit the Colorado Avalanche Information Center

Event: Ski Season Kickoff Party 2009

“A Fundraising Event for CAIC / FOBP / BSA”

What: Fundraiser

Start Time: Wednesday, September 30 at 5:00pm End Time: Wednesday, September 30 at 9:00pm

Where: Bent Gate Mountaineering

To see more details and RSVP, follow the link below:

http://www.facebook.com/n/?event.php&eid=133118014003&mid=11c5926G1e5dc624G35471b9G7

More information over the debate about ski helmets: Ski Helmets ineffective crashes were the wear is going faster than 12 miles per hour

More information over the debate about ski helmets: Ski Helmets ineffective crashes were the wear is going faster than 12 miles per hour

A study just released by Karl-Heinz Kristen, vice president of the Deutsch-Österreichisch-Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Orthopädisch-Traumatologische Sportmedizin (GOTS or German-Austrian-Swiss Association for Orthopedic-Traumatic Sport Medicine) just released a study showing that ski helmets are only effective in crashes of less than 12 miles per hour.

For this article see Ski helmets ineffective over 20km/h claims sport medic. For additional posts on ski helmets see Mixed emotions, but a lot of I told you so, A new idea that makes sense in helmets: the Bern Hard Hat and A helmet manufacture understands the issues. For Outdoor Recreation Law Review articles on the subject see In the News: Article finds helmets might not be as effective as once thought, an avalanche at a ski resort in Indiana, 3 American climbers killed by rock slide, climber left hanging, snowmobile fatality, and much more…

May people believe that I am against wearing helmets? That is not true, I have several and wear them a lot of the time. I want people to understand why and what a helmet will and most importantly what a helmet will not do. A helmet will do nothing in whitewater rafting. A helmet will not save your life in skiing. I wear my ski helmet on crazy days or cold days. Sometimes I wear a helmet skiing when I just want to ski fast. But that is more of a brain bucket for the ski patrol then believing it will keep me alive.

This is another study that shows that helmets are NOT going to keep you alive.

This is going to happen in every fatality, be prepared

Liam Neeson calls instructor who was with wife Natasha Richardson during fatal fall

Several news sources are reporting that the surviving spouse of Natasha Richardson Liam Neeson called and talked to the ski instructor who was with his wife when she fell.

“He was very dignified and never sought to blame anyone — he just wanted to understand what happened for his own peace of mind.”

People want closure. People want to know what happened. People want to know why their loved one is no longer with them. The people who were with them, who rescued them, who assisted are going to be contacted so people can learn what happened.

Blame comes later, usually after you follow your attorney or insurance company’s advice and refuse to talk to the family. What would you do if you wanted to know what happened to a deceased loved one and the people who knew refused to talk to you? Would you get mad, would you work harder at finding out, would you get help to learn what happened?

Help in these cases usually comes in the form of an attorney.

For more articles about this see It’s Not Money, Another case where anger starts and continues a lawsuit., I write sometimes about emotions: anger, frustration or grief, Grieving Father starts organization to make skiing safer and Serious Disconnect: Why people sue. For articles about this issue in the Outdoor Recreation Law Review see Non-participating spouses signatures on releases are essential and Case Brief: Case against summer camp offers great insight into Massachusetts release law.

Strange SAR results in a lawsuit: RCMP helicopter pilot misses SOS in the snow.

But the lost couple brought the problems and resulting deaths on themselves.

A Montreal Canada man is suing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) over a failed search and rescue (SAR) in Canada. In this case the man’s wife died and he suffered injuries after they got lost and the RCMP failed to search for them even after finding an SOS stamped in the snow. The couple was lost for nine days, the wife eventually dying.

The plaintiff is suing the search and rescue organization and the RCMP as well as the resort. Searches were called off because of conflicting information. Although the SOS was seen by pilots flying in the area, no one had reported anyone missing and no ski rental gear was reported missing.

The plaintiff and his wife had ducked ropes and skied out of bounds at the Kicking Horse Mountain Resort in British Columbia. You duck a rope you’re on your own.

See Montreal-Area Man Sues Ski Resort, Police and Search and Rescue Group Over Delayed Rescue Effort
and Man files suit over botched rescue of his wife from mountains.

Mixed emotions, but a lot of I told you so.

Helmets. Everyone is running around saying you have to wear a helmet. Worse, the people saying this are not helmet manufactures but people who open their mouths before engaging any research or their brain. Worse a celebrity just died re-inflaming the debate by people who just want to kill trees to advertise Viagra and bath soap!

In an article Widow sues over fatal skiing crash
The Rutland Herald reports Killington ski area is being sued over the sale of a helmet. The 44 year old decedent purchased a Giro Omen helmet equipped with a Bluetooth Audio System. He crashed into a tree at Killington Mountain in February of 2008 suffering a fatal head injury.

The allegations state at the time of impact the Bluetooth dislodged and resulted in the skull fracture.

1. An adult man skiing into a tree, an expert skier and the Bluetooth audio caused the skull fracture? Speed * Mass striking a mostly immovable object equals a couple of ounces where the cause of death?
   
2. Helmets won’t save you from dying if you hit a tree. Most helmets are effective at preventing injuries due to 12 mph impacts. Most people ski faster than 12 mph, so there is some benefit. However several studies have shown that skiing with a helmet increases the speed at which you ski by more than 12 mph because of feeling safer. Risk Homeostasis. See A new idea that makes sense in helmets: the Bern Hard Hat, and A helmet manufacture understands the issues.
   
3. A lawsuit won’t solve any problems or answer any questions in this case.
   

As I have said before and will continue to say, it sucks when someone dies. It sucks for the surviving widow and family. It also sucks for the 20 something members of the ski patrol who have to physically deal with the issues. It sucks for the staff that has to answer questions and deal with the fatality. It sucks for everyone. Our condolences go to the family and the resort.

But a lawsuit won’t change anything. People are still going to talk on the cell phones or listen to music and ski…and drive. People are going to ski fast, probably faster if they wear a helmet. People are going to hit trees, fatally if the person is going fast enough or they are inclined to die if they hit a tree.

Wearing a helmet won’t stop you from dying if you hit a tree. Most skier deaths are caused by internal injuries anyway. It takes a lot less force to injury your organs or tear or ascending aorta than to cause a concussion in some cases. Wearing a helmet just makes less of a mess if you hit the tree with your head.

Utahans quick to take advantage and sue ski resorts for injuries.

The Park City Utah Park Record is reporting in Late skier’s family files a lawsuit that the family of a deceased ski racer has filed a suit against the resort and race organizer where he died. The deceased was practicing for a race when he crashed. He was not found for 8 hours after the crash and died.

Normally, a racer would sign a release before a race and any practice. Racers usually assume the risk of the course and the activity. However the report states the lawsuit is about the failure to design the course and find the victim after the crash, items that might not be assumed, but would be protected by a release.

The fatality occurred a little more than a month after the Utah Supreme Court changed the law with the lawsuit started a year after the fatality and 13 months after the law change.

See Utah Supreme Court Reverses long position on releases in a very short period of time for a discussion of the Supreme Court Decision that allows this suit. For an in depth discussion of the Utah Supreme Court decision see Utah Supreme Court flip flop on releases for ski areas could have broader consequence (Subscription).

California Ski and Snowboard Safety Organization turns out to be a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

The California Assembly Judicial committee is looking into ski safety issues as a result of the actions of Dr. Dan Gregorie and the California Ski and Snowboard Safety Organization (CSSSO). See my comments about the CSSSO at “Grieving Father starts organization to make skiing safer.”

What is interesting is the “change in attitude” of Dr. Gregorie. In prior interviews including the ones I based my earlier article on Dr. Gregorie and his organization were focusing on keeping skiers safe. Now however there seems to be a revenge motive involved. Dr. Gregorie is quoted as saying. “It’s time something is done to hold ski resorts more accountable and make uniform signage, adequate barriers and proper traffic and speed management part of everyday safety practices.” He has morphed from signage to lawsuits. Along with t a desire to hold ski resorts more accountable, which appears to translate into easier to sue, Dr. Gregorie is attempting to remove personal responsibility from skiers and boarders and place it on the ski areas. “proper traffic and speed management.”

The tenure of the entire direction of the CSSSO has changed as evidenced by these statements in the article:

My original article quotes the purpose of the organization from its website which says nothing about changing the legal issues involved in the California Ski Industry. Yet this now seems to be the intended purpose of the organization.

Another article quotes Dr. Gregorie as saying “It’s time something is done to hold ski resorts more accountable and make uniform signage, adequate barriers and proper traffic and speed management part of everyday safety practices.” See Advocates Urge California Legislature to Make Ski Resorts Safer Assembly Judiciary Committee Hears Harrowing Accounts of Preventable Deaths and Injuries on California Ski Slopes. This article is supposedly written by CSSSO.

Another person interviewed for the article stated the trees and rocks needed padding.

In researching this article I discovered some very interesting comments about it. The Press Democrat of Santa Rosa California in writing about the CSSSO stated in an article “The steady number of serious injuries is prompting programs at ski resorts to increase awareness of risks in the backcountry” that fatalities were caused by “head meets tree.” Although this has been widely reported, there is no research that supports this allegation. If a skier or boarder hits a tree fast enough to cause a head injury, the cause of death is usually a torn aorta. The major blood vessel leaving the heart has very little protection and tears. Yet people and reporters continually report fatal collisions with trees as being caused by head injuries. The comment could be a comment about avalanche deaths, it is hard to understand. I posted a comment asking for support for their statement. However the comments are moderated. A week later my comment was posted but I never got a response..

I understand the issues and anger of losing a loved one. I understand and write about dealing with those issues. I understand the Ski Resorts do not do a good job of dealing with the surviving loved ones and with communicating to the public. However those are not the issues here.

The issue here is there is a non-profit organization that has presented itself to the public and probably the IRS as wanting to promote safety which in actuality wants to promote litigation. If you gave money to CSSSO based on their website, can you get a refund now that the true purpose of the organization has come out?