$6.1 Million for Fireman After Plunge Over Open Edge of Ski Run

Client suffered disabling brain damage in a skiing accident on a ski trail maintained at a ski area near Harrisonburg, Virginia by Massanutten Ski Resort.

His brain injuries were totally disabling, requiring full time institutionalization. He suffers permanent and profound physical, mental and psychological deficits. He is confined to a wheelchair and suffers uncontrollable bouts of frustration and anger. His intellectual capacity is severely limited. He communicates with simple notes, and he can manage no more than a game of BINGO.

Massanutten Mountain forms a ridge east of the Shenandoah Mountains. Massanutten Ski Resort has a peak elevation of about 2900 ft. above sea level. It has 11 slopes, 8 lighted, a quad chairlift, and over 1,110 feet of vertical drop. Slopes are typically open from mid-December until mid-March, with 100% snow-making capacity. Its longest two runs are both man-made, the 3,400-foot Diamond Jim and the 4,100-foot ParaDice. Using the cut-and-fill construction method, both of these were completed by Massanutten in late 1991. Client’s accident occurred on Diamond Jim, just two days after it had opened to the public.

In a motion for judgment alleging negligence on the part of Massanutten, Client’s wife sought recovery of damages for his injuries. A jury returned a verdict in the Client’s favor in the amount of $6,170,563.00. The jury found no contributory negligence and no assumption of risk. Upon the motion of Massanutten, the trial court set the verdict aside and entered judgment in favor of Massanutten.

The trial judge determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, giving credence to defendant’s contention that the result was merely a “sympathy verdict.” We filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia. The writ was granted. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and reinstated the verdict.

Past results are no guarantee of future results.

$8.3 Million Verdict for Minor Suffering Traumatic Brain Injury

A 17 year-old skier was night skiing down Eagle’s Swoop, an open intermediate slope at Wintergreen ski resort in Nelson County, Virginia. On the night of the accident, a snow groomer emerged from the tree line on skier’s left of Eagle’s Swoop, pivoted uphill, and then began driving about 300′ straight uphill close to the tree line and against the direction of skier traffic, while the ski run was open to the skiing public. Client came over the crest of the pitch, up which the snow groomer was ascending. She avoided the escorting snowmobile, lost control, fell and slid at high speed about 90 feet into the blade of the groomer. She sustained a comminuted fracture to her left humerus, a fracture of her left elbow and a non-displaced pelvic fracture. She also sustained a severe right frontal skull fracture. She went into respiratory arrest at the scene and was resuscitated by the patroller who had been riding the snowmobile. She was evacuated by helicopter to the trauma center. Her orthopedic injuries healed, but her skull fracture resulted in a permanent brain injury with extensive loss of function.

Plaintiff contended that the policy of bringing the groomer out into the slope, through a break in the tree line, pivoting uphill, and then driving the groomer uphill against skier traffic was unreasonably dangerous. Moreover, there was a blind area where the groomer was moving: from uphill, as she descended, a skier’s visibility of the run on which the groomer was moving was either obscured or partially obscured. The ski area operator specifically approved the policy of moving groomers on open slopes with an escorting snow mobile but prohibiting actual grooming on open ski slopes. The case was tried in Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle, Virginia.

The jury awarded $8.3 million. The Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed the Defendant’s Petition of Appeal on July 7, 2005. Jim Chalat co-counseled the case with Bryan Slaughter of Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel, of Charlottesville, Virginia.

Ski Collision at Snowbird Results in $1.5 Million Settlement

Johnny Kotun, age 28, was an expert recreational skier. On March 25, 2007 at 4:00 PM, Kotun was traversing along a lower cat walk across the “Wilbere cutoff” and was headed toward one of the lower parking lots at Snowbird Ski Resort. Defendant, a 16-year-old off-duty junior ski instructor, was descending the cutoff, directly under the Wilbere chair lift. Defendant took a jump off of a transition, and performed a 360. He landed, carved two wide arc turns and collided at high speed into Kotun. Kotun was seen and heard waving his arms and shouting at defendant to avoid him in the moments before the collision. At impact, Kotun was ejected from his skis and thrown into a nearby tree. Defendant also went airborne into the tree. About 25′ from the point of impact was a large, orange SLOW banner. The testimony from witnesses (including chairlift passengers who reported to the scene) and the defendant formed a basis for our expert to establish a minimum speed at point of impact > 42 mph.

Defendant sustained a non-displaced pelvic fracture, a concussion (no helmet) and bruising to his kidneys and spleen. He recovered without any impairment.

Kotun sustained mandibular and maxillary fractures. Although he was wearing a helmet, Kotun also sustained an intra cerebral and frontal lobe hemorrhage, and a severe shear injury.

He recovered from the facial fractures but is now hemi-plegic on his left side, and has significant cognitive and speech impairments. His ability to live independently and earn an independent living has been lost.

The parties settled for the policy limits of $1.5 Million. A significant portion of the settlement payment was structured. The case was filed in Salt Lake County District Court and local counsel on the case were Craig Adamson and Craig Hoggan of Dart Adamson and Donovan of Salt Lake City, Utah.

$795,000 Settlement In Breckenridge Ski Collision Case

Our client was hit from behind near the base of Breckenridge in a slow zone by a teenage skier. The teen’s skis went between our client’s skis, and the teen then snowplowed and fell forward onto our client, tearing both of our client’s ACLs. Partner Evan Banker secured a $795,000 settlement on her behalf.

$435,000 Jury Verdict for Skier Injured at Steamboat

Quick overview: Our client was descending See Me at Steamboat when he was t-boned on the right side by the defendant. The collision resulted in a fractured hip. This is the first skier/skier collision case tried to verdict in the United States since the Gwyneth Paltrow case. Partner Evan Banker and Russell Hatten represented our clients in this matter. The jury awarded damages of $435,000, With interest and costs the total judgment is expected to exceed $500,000. Foster v. M.B., 2022CV 30020 (Routt County District Court).

Foster v M.B., Routt County District Court, Case No. 2022CV030020 (June 15, 2023).

In this skier v skier case tried by Russell Hatten and Evan Banker, a Routt County jury found 100% liability against the minor defendant who was age 16 at the time of the accident and is referred therefore by his initials “M.B.” 

The jury evaluated the evidence and awarded $173,134.72 for pain and suffering, plus $131,400.00 for economic damages (primarily medical billings) and an equivalent amount, $131,400.00, for physical impairment and/or disfigurement.  Total $435,934.72. Following entry of judgment, the insurer for M.B. paid approximately $525,000 to settle the judgment plus costs and interest, closing the case.

Moral of the story… this was the first full trial of a skier collision case since the highly publicized case of Sanders v Paltrow tried in Summit County, Utah.  Avoiding all of the nonsense, Russell and Evan focused on the facts as set out in the contemporaneous accident reports, the forensic evidence, the medical evidence and imaging showing the fractures and complexity of the care. The weight of the evidence established that M.B. was the uphill skier with plenty of time and space to avoid the collision.  The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff notwithstanding some belief that the Paltrow case had reduced skier collision cases to daytime cable-t.v., soap opera comedy. 

Facts:

On December 27, 2021, both Mr. Foster (age 67) and M.B., were skiing at Steamboat on “See Me.” Foster was a former a NCAA Alpine Skiing Champion, who had skied on the varsity ski team at the University of Colorado. Foster was skiing down the skier’s far right side making short, tight slalom turns at a skiing speed of 10- to 12-miles per hour.

“See Me,” is a “Most difficult,”/Black Diamond trail. It was 50 yards wide with a 17° inclination at the point of the incident. Based upon Steamboat Ski Patrol photographs, GPS measurements, video and aerial photography, our ski safety engineer, Mr. Patrick Kelley, determined that there was more than 200-yards of open visibility on See Me above the area of the collision.

Foster testified that M.B. hit him from uphill at a high rate of speed. M.B. reported to the Steamboat Ski Patrol that he and Mr. Foster, “were both skiing down the mountain taking turns and I was kind of mapping out his turns and I hit a patch of ice right as he made a little bit longer turn than I expected and I just couldn’t get out of the way.”

In the collision, Foster took the brunt of the of the force on his uphill leg – at his right hop. Foster sustained a right proximal femur fracture. He was evacuated from the scene by tobaggon.  M.B. was uninjured.

Mr. Foster was taken to Yampa Valley hospital in Steamboat where an orthopedist repaired his fracture with an intramedullary nail and two fixator screws.  Although the fracture seemed to be healing, in June 2022 Mr. Foster experienced a refracture of the injury.  A second surgery was done with the placement of a more robust plate, screws, and fixation.  There was no claim and no evidence that the Steamboat doctor’s treatment was below standard.  The severity of the fracture, was significant.  A re-fracture was a risk to be expected.  No evidence was presented that Foster failed to follow advice or did anything to cause the re-fracture. 

Foster’s doctor testified that Foster now walks with a limp, he has not returned to skiing, and is limited in his activity. For a former college ski racer, his life was changed. The risk of yet another re-injury limits him.  He has not returned to hiking, riding outdoors, or other activities to which he looked forward during retirement. 

Legal issues: The Court instructed the jury under the Colorado Ski Safety Act:

At the time of the occurrence in question in this case the Colorado Ski Safety Act was in effect.  The Colorado Ski Safety Act states:

Each skier solely has the responsibility for knowing the range of his own ability to negotiate any ski slope or trail and to ski within the limits of such ability… the risk of a skier/skier collision is neither an inherent risk nor a risk assumed by a skier in an action by one skier against another.”  Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-109(1).

Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects. However, the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-109(2). 

A violation of these statutes constitutes negligence. If you find such a violation, you may only consider it if you also find that it was a cause of the claimed injuries, damages, and losses.

Each skier solely has the responsibility for knowing the range of his own ability to negotiate any ski slope or trail and to ski within the limits of such ability

Each skier has the duty to maintain control of his speed and course at all times when skiing and to maintain a proper lookout so as to be able to avoid other skiers and objects.

the primary duty shall be on the person skiing downhill to avoid collision with any person or objects below him.

A violation of these statutes constitutes negligence

Settlement Offer:
On April 4, 2023 Defendant made a statutory offer of settlement in the amount of $350,000. Foster turned down the offer.


Expert witnesses:

               Medicine:

Orthopedics – Dr. Michael Shingles, D.O., of Lansing Michigan for Plaintiff. Dr. Shingles testified by video preservation deposition. He testified as to the anatomy, severity, and treatment for the acute injury, the after care, subsequent re-fracture in June 2022 which Dr. Shingles treated, the reasonableness of the care and medical billings, the cause and repair of the re-fracture, and the impairment, pain and suffering, future prognoses, of Foster.  The evidence given by Dr. Shingles was unrebutted.

On Liability:

Patrick Kelley, P.E.  Patrick is one of the most well-respected accident reconstruction and ski safety experts in the United States.  He testified as to the location and terrain of the accident scene, the forces and vectors of the parties.

Long-time defense expert Seth Bayer, P.E. testified for defendant, but admitted on cross examination that defendant was probably the uphill skier based upon the evidence in the case.

Helmets Save Lives

We always hear about the importance of wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle, motorcycle, scooters and skateboards, but we rarely consider the importance of wearing one when skiing or snowboarding. Skiing and snowboarding are considered high intensity sports and participating in these sports can lead to serious injuries. According to The New York Times, wearing a helmet when skiing has reduced head injuries such as fractured skulls, facial lacerations and head lacerations by 50%.

Research shows that in 2003 only 25% of individuals were wearing helmets when hitting the slopes. In 2013, the number had gone up to 70%. The number of head injuries on the slopes has not declined, but the severity of those injuries has improved. Although ski resorts don’t require the use of a helmet, The National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) advocates the use of helmets, especially for children. The NSAA states that helmets may be the difference between a major and minor head injury. This is especially important for developing children.

Wearing a helmet while skiing is vital for childrencThey have less developed motor control and decision-making skills necessary to stay safe. Children are not able to determine distance, speed and when to brake, unlike fully developed adults. This is true for sledding as well. Studies show that head trauma accounts for 34% of injuries from sledding. Children also run the risk of being struck by a skier or snowboarder that is much bigger, heavier and faster, which can result in serious injuries.

Last month an 8-year-old boy died during a ski accident in Connecticut. The young boy attempted to drop into a half pipe that was 3-4 feet tall. The boy’s legs and feet came out from underneath him and he struck his head on the inside of the half pipe. He died of blunt impact injury to the head and his skull was fractured. He was not wearing a helmet.

Consider the following when skiing or riding:

  • For every 10,000 people on the slopes, three people will sustain a head injury requiring medical attention.
  • 30-50 percent of head injuries can be reduced by helmets. Wearing a helmet may be the difference between life and death.
  • Alpine skiers are three times more likely than a snowboarder to be involved in a collision.

Colorado Ski Law

Colorado’s “Ski Safety Act,” located at Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-44-101 to -114 provides for skier assumption of inherent dangers, and creates statutory duties for skiers and operators. Skiers, inclusive of sledders and snowboarders, have duties to ski within their abilities, with uphill skiers having a primary duty to avoid collision. Breach of skier duties constitutes negligence.

No distinction is drawn between young children and adults in application of the Act, such that the common law, particularly that young children can not commit negligence nor assume a risk, has been arguably abrogated. In a 2003 statutory amendment, parents were expressly permitted to waive or release a child’s claim in negligence. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-22-107, as added by Laws 2003, Ch. 262, § 1, eff. May 14, 2003 (reversing the conclusion of Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co., 48 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2002) that such a waiver violated public policy and created an unacceptable conflict between parent and child).

In actions arising from skier/skier collisions, such a collision is considered neither an inherent or assumed risk. Id. at § 33-44-109(1). Ski area operators have specific duties to mark trails and provide some other warnings. There is no duty to pad lift towers. Operator breach of a statutory duty constitutes negligence, and is not considered an inherent danger to which liability limitations apply. Id. at §§ 33-44-103(3.5), 33-44-104(2).

Limitations are imposed on damages collectible against ski area operators for downhill skiing accidents, but no such limitation on damages exists for lift accidents. A tramway board is separately formed by Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-34-101 et seq, and tramways are otherwise regulated under the “Passenger Tramway Safety Act,” Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-5-701 et seq. Volunteer ski patrol members are granted civil immunity for acts or omissions in the provision of emergency services or assistance, so long as members act in good faith. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-21-108(3).

Snowmobile use is subject to the duties enumerated in Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-14-101 to -116, the breach of which is handled as negligence per se. The Ski Safety Act was amended in 2004 in several significant respects. Laws 2004, Ch. 341, § 3, eff. May 28, 2004. Skiers continue to assume the “inherent dangers and risks of skiing.”
However, where such dangers and conditions were once only those that were an “integral part” of the sport, the 2004 amendments have modified the language to include all those that are “a part” of the sport. Colo. Rev. Stat Ann. § 33-44-103(3.5), as amended.

Arguably, the omission of the word “integral” could be read broadly to mean without regard to the negligence or lack of care by an operator assumption of practically all hazards. Under Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-44-108(2), as amended, the operator’s duty to post a sign warning of maintenance equipment on an open slope or trail was narrowed to exclude maintenance equipment en route to or from a grooming project. The Amendments eliminate the ski area operator’s prior duty to mark “danger areas”, and includes cliffs and other unmarked dangers as one of the “inherent dangers” of the sport.

Additionally, ski area operator immunities have been expanded to include all ski area property, not just those areas designated for skiing or competition.

What is a Ski Collision Case?

What is a ski collision case?

Skiing is not a contact sport and being blindsided by another skier or snowboarder is not an inherent risk under either Colorado or Utah law. Colorado law presumes that the uphill skier or boarder is at fault in a skiing accident, because the overtaking skier has the primary duty to avoid the skier below. In Utah, skiers are required to exercise “reasonable care” to avoid collisions. Usually, this also means the uphill skier must yield to skiers below.

Thus, one of the key issues in any skier/skier case is who was the uphill or overtaking skier. The nature of the injury often gives substantial clues as to how the ski accident occurred, the speed at which the skiers were skiing, and the relative angles to each other.

All skiers are under a general duty to ski cautiously, within their ability and to maintain control and a proper lookout. If a skier fails to ski in control or to maintain a lookout, the skier is negligent and responsible for the injuries and damages that result from the collision

What makes a ski collision case unique?

Many people, including inexperienced lawyers, view a ski collision as just “a car crash on the slopes.” This is an inaccurate characterization for a number reasons, including the dynamics of the accident itself and the laws determining liability. Your best outcome will be achieved by an attorney who not only skis, but also knows the trails and terrain at the Colorado ski areas, and has experience in ski accident reconstruction.

Additionally, the severity of the orthopedic injuries suffered distinguish many ski injuries – long bones and joints are often shattered, requiring extensive, long-term care to reach maximum medical improvement. Studies suggest that over thirty percent of skier collisions result in head injuries. Many of these skiing accident injuries leave some form of permanent impairment. Insurance coverage is typically more complicated than that for motor vehicle accidents as well.

Skiing is not an inexpensive sport to enjoy. Most regular skiers own their homes and thus have homeowner’s insurance coverage which provides coverage for ski accidents. But if the hitter is a young adult, gaining coverage under the parents’ homeowners’ insurance may be a fight depending on the specific facts.

What to expect from a ski collision lawsuit?

Ski safety laws in most states require individuals involved in skier/skier collisions to stop at the scene, render aid and to give their name, address, and identification. Yet, we receive numerous calls each year from skiers who were injured by another’s reckless skiing and that injured skier is unable to identify or name the reckless skier involved. Do not rely on ski patrol or ski area operators to get this information for you because in most cases, they are under no legal duty to obtain the information.

Generally, ski patrol will compile a relatively comprehensive report concerning the nature, location, and causes of a skier/skier collision. But you may not be provided a complete copy of the accident file without legal representation, many ski area operators will only produce the complete file in response to a subpoena from an attorney.

Medical expenses can easily run into six-figures. The nature of the injuries suffered in a ski collision often means expensive accommodations are needed over a long-term period. Other expenses which arise include future medical expenses, often coupled with a loss of income if the victim was previously employed. Usually the worst parts of the injury are the pain, the difficulty during recovery, and sometimes even a permanent impairment. The injured victim may seek compensation from the liable party for all of these expenses

Trust The Real Experts

The injury rate for recreational skiers and snowboarders is approximately 1.37 per 1,000 skier/snowboarder visits. In Colorado, this translates to about 25,000 injuries, from minor to severe, each ski season. Snowboarders and skiers suffer different types of injuries, but their statistical likelihood of an injury is equivalent. Despite common misconceptions, snowboarders are neither more dangerous nor more likely to be injured than skiers.

About 5% of all skiing injuries are due to collisions. The uphill or overtaking skier (or rider) has the primary duty to avoid the skier who is downhill. When entering or crossing a trail, a skier must yield to skiers already on the trail. Skiers must maintain a lookout and ski in control and within their ability. And, what should be obvious, do NOT drink alcohol or smoke pot and ski. Following these rules would prevent most skier collision injuries and in severe cases, deaths.

The Colorado Ski Safety Act requires all parties to a collision to stay at the scene and give their name and current address to ski patrol. We recommend that you never ski or ride alone. It’s important to carry your cell phone and a trail map so you can call for help and provide your location on the mountain. If there is an accident, stay calm. Keep the injured person warm and don’t move them. At a large ski area on a busy holiday weekend, it can take time to get help.

The Ski Act also provides that an injured skier can sue for damages if he or she is hurt by an out-of-control skier. Skiing is not a contact sport.

A good case study is that of Jim S., of Illinois.

It was President’s Day weekend 2017. Clear skies. Good snow. Big crowds at Breckenridge.

For years, Jim had been an Epic pass holder. He began skiing as a teenager. He was in excellent condition—sixty-three years old, six-feet tall, 175 lbs. On the third day of his trip, he met up with Mike, a friend of his from Illinois. Mike was wearing a Go-Pro camera. At about 11:30, they were in the lift-line for the Colorado Super Chair. Jim was wearing black ski pants, a blue parka and a black helmet.

Meanwhile, a 39-year old snowboarder from Texas named “J.P.” was close by in the lift-line for the Rocky Mountain Super Chair. J.P. identified himself as an expert snowboarder. He started his morning with a mimosa.

After Jim and Mike got off their chair, they pushed off down Columbine. Mike clicked record on his Go-Pro. In the video, you can see as Mike and Jim skied on Columbine past several SLOW SKIING signs. They crossed under the Rocky Mountain Super Chair probably just moments after J.P. had unloaded and turned down Columbine himself. 200 yards further down Columbine, just as it comes to the top of Duke’s run, Mike’s Go- Pro video shows J.P. come into view, riding much faster than any other rider on Columbine and passing Mike.

The video then shows J.P., as he quickly overtakes Jim S., and crashes into him from uphill. Jim fell hard on his left side, severely fracturing his left hip and shoulder. He clutched at his hip in pain, as Mike’s Go-Pro video continued its recording. Ski patrol evacuated Jim off the mountain and he was transported to the hospital for emergency hip surgery (with hardware). Two days later, his shoulder was surgically repaired. Jim’s medical expenses were nearly a quarter million dollars and he lost over a hundred thousand dollars of income as he recovered. His doctors told him his hip and shoulder would never work the same again. Jim hired our law firm to get compensation for his injuries. After discovery and before trial, Jim S. accepted a policy limits $1,500,000 settlement. It was paid by J.P.’s homeowner’s insurance that he carried on his house in the Dallas suburbs. The at-fault skier’s homeowner’s insurance typically covers cases like these.

Jim doesn’t ski anymore. He walks with a limp and his left shoulder doesn’t work as well as it did pre-accident. But, Jim doesn’t let his injuries keep him down. He puts his energy into charitable projects, including, Concern Worldwide US; and of course he spends a lot of time with his family. Ski and ride safely this season. If you need more information, go to SKILAW.COM, or call our team directly at 720.790.4177.

The Original Ski Lawyers

LINDA:

In 1980, Jim Chalat published a law review article about the Colorado Skier Safety Act. It had been enacted in 1979 in order to protect ski area operators from liability in cases involving the “inherent risks of skiing. Since then, we have developed a practice area concerning skier accidents. In 1998, I created and now manage the website: SKILAW.COM. The site is devoted exclusively to the skier accident practice at our firm. We advocate at the legislature for skier safety and Jim, Evan and Russell speak, teach and publish in the field of recreational accidents and the law. 

JIM:

The ski industry in Colorado has changed. It is now a major corporate enterprise. Approximately 80% of the 13 million annual skier days in Colorado are controlled by four major corporations, each with billions in assets, and millions of customers. Vail Resorts Inc (Ticker: MTN) controls 5 ski areas in Colorado on about 35,000 acres of federal land under Special Use Permits. Aspen Ski Co. operates on 7,800 acres of USFS land in the White River Forest. Aspen is a partner in Alterra Mountain Co., which in turn operates Steamboat and Winter Park. Powdr Corp. operates Eldora and Copper Mtn. All 4 of these resorts occupy public land. For the skiers and snowboarders, things have changed as well. Some things are better. In most cases lifts are safer and faster. Ski and snowboard equipment and clothing have improved. Safety has improved—largely because of the almost universal use of helmets. But still, this ski season, we can reliably predict that about 17,000 skiers or snowboarders will sustain injuries on the slopes. Of those, probably a dozen people will be catastrophically injured – spinal cord (SCI) traumatic brain (TBI), or severe orthopedic injuries. Snowboarders and skiers suffer different types of injuries, but their statistical likelihood of an injury is equivalent. Despite common misconceptions, snowboarders are neither more dangerous nor more likely to be injured than skiers.

EVAN:

How you can best protect yourself and your family? About 5% of all skiing injuries are due to collisions. The uphill or overtaking skier (or rider) has the primary duty to avoid the skier who is downhill. When entering or crossing a trail, a skier must yield to skiers already on the trail. Skiers must maintain a lookout and ski in control and within their ability. Wear good goggles so that you can see where you are going. Maintain your equipment so you can stop and turn. Don’t ski alone. Adjust your bindings to the correct DIN. And, what should be obvious, do NOT drink alcohol or smoke pot and ski or ride. Following these rules would prevent most accidents. The Colorado Ski Safety Act requires all parties to a collision to stay at the scene and give their name and current address to ski patrol. We recommend that you never ski or ride alone. It’s important to carry your cell phone and a trail map so you can call for help and provide your location on the mountain. If there is an accident, stay calm. Keep the injured person warm and don’t move them. Stop the bleeding, keep them breathing, knowing a little 1st aid is a good idea for any outdoor activity. At a large ski area on a busy holiday weekend, it can take time to get help. The Ski Act also provides that an injured skier can sue for damages if he or she is hurt by an out-of-control skier. Skiing is not a contact sport.

RUSSELL:

Our case of James v. J.P. is a cautionary example. It was President’s Day weekend 2017. Clear skies. Good snow. Big crowds at Breckenridge. Our client, James, was a long-time skier, in in excellent condition—sixty-three years old, six-feet tall, 175 lbs. He rode the Colorado Super Chair to the Columbine trail. A 39-year old snowboarder named “J.P.” was close by in the lift-line for the Rocky Mountain Super Chair. J.P. self identified himself as an expert snowboarder. He had started his morning with a mimosa. The skiing companion of James caught it all on his GO-PRO. As James was making his way on an intermediate trail J.P.overtakes James and crashes into him from uphill. James fell hard on his left side, severely fracturing his left hip and shoulder.. Ski patrol evacuated Jim off the mountain and he was transported to the hospital for emergency hip surgery (with hardware). Two days later, his shoulder was surgically repaired. His medical expenses were nearly a quarter million dollars and he lost over a hundred thousand dollars of income as he recovered. His doctors told him his hip and shoulder would never work the same again. He hired CHALAT HATTEN & BANKER to get compensation for his injuries. After discovery and before trial, we accepted a policy limits $1,500,000 settlement. It was paid by J.P.’s homeowner’s insurance which typically covers cases like these.