Kid suit sets off storm Angry calls, e-mail bury Pa. couple in ski collision case

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Denver Rocky Mounain News

The Pennsylvania couple suing an 8-year-old and his father over a January skiing accident have been the victim of "an electronic tar and feathering" since stories about the case began circulating on the Internet, the couple's attorney said Monday.

David Pfahler and his wife, Marlene Ambrogio, have had to leave their Allentown home for the holidays because people who got angry after reading the story tied up the family's phone lines using "robocalling" technology, or repeated, automated calls, attorney Jim Chalat said.

Others have called Reader's Digest, where Pfahler works, and demanded he be fired.

"I've never seen anything like it," said Chalat, whose Denver law firm also has received angry e-mails and calls.

He said the couple are "brokenhearted" by the way they've been portrayed.



Read more: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/24/kid-suit-sets-storm/

---

IMHO this guys lawsuit is STUPID! I'm not a skier but I could see instances where an older reckless skier could be sued but an 8-yr old?

And those harassing this couple are equal idiots.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

1. I have been in a ski accident,

I got flattened and run into a picnic table at the bottom of the hill by a snowboarder who couldn't stop, and I can honestly say suing the girl never crossed my mind even though I was injured.

It was an accident, I have insurance and she might have been twenty and probably didn't have a dime.

[zalinda]

2. Good, I hope this article will stop

the frivolous lawsuits. This is just plain stupid, and greedy. Next thing you know you'll have someone suiting over a pair of pants, oh wait.........

zalinda

[Alexander]

3. I crashed into a snowboarder while skiing when I was 9.

Thankfully he had a good sense of humor and joked about it. Nobody was hurt, thankfully. I just wasn't as good at skiing then as I am now.

I can't imagine someone suing a kid over this. Are amateur skiers supposed to learn how to ski in private areas now, or what?

[WinkyDink]

125. Don't be ignorant. You must know there are "bunny" slopes for beginners.

[Alexander]

131. You're ignorant, passing judgment without knowing the circumstances.

As a matter of fact my back gave out, causing me to lose control, and I was sledded down to the medical tent for the next few hours. I was in much more pain than the snowboarder, I can guarantee that.

And I yelled "Look out, I've lost control!!!" several times beforehand. Not my fault if people don't heed my warnings, and for a 9-year-old I did pretty well.

Maybe you should do more asking and less accusing. That way you won't come across as a total fool.

[Xithras]

135. In that case you SIT DOWN.

I've skied all my life, and I've taught the sport to my wife and two of my three children. The first rule that I taught them, and that every instructor I've ever met teaches their students, is that you SIT DOWN if you feel like you're out of control. It's just snow, and you probably won't hurt yourself if you just plant your butt in it.

An out of control skier is easily capable of paralyzing or killing someone...including themselves. When you start to go out of control, it's imperative that you know how to bring yourself under control or, if that's not possible, to an emergency stop. If you cannot do that (and my kids learned to do it at 4 years old) you have no business on the slopes. This kid should have been in a ski class, not skiing freely on the slopes.

It is the responsibility of the uphill skier to avoid skiers downhill, because downhill skiers cannot see uphill skiers coming. That's the law in pretty much every state that has a ski resort. Some states even have criminal statutes allowing the prosecution of uphill skiers who recklessly hurt other people downhill of them.

[grahamhgreen]

4. Looks like a medical insurance case.

It's another example of why we need real single-payer healthcare (NOT Hillary's forced insurance).

This family seeks help paying the medical bills from the accident.

The reason you'll see a bunch of press about it is because the big companies see this is another promo-piece about how frivolous lawsuits are destroying the country, when really, they just don't want to be held responsible for anything.

"He was taken to a local hospital, where his shoulder was immobilized. He returned to Pennsylvania, where he underwent surgery for a torn rotator cuff and a procedure to repair part of his clavicle, the lawsuit states. Since then, he has undergone "extensive" physical therapy, according to the lawsuit.

Chalat said Pfahler sent a letter to the Swimm family after he returned home, asking them to help pay his $35,000 of medical bills. He never heard back, Chalat said."

THE BEST WAY TO END THESE TYPE OF LAWSUITS IS TO HAVE SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE.

[IndyOp]

11. Spot On: The best way to end this type of lawsuits is to have single-payer healthcare.

You are right on target. I was just reading John Edwards' autobiography "Four Trials" and was thinking the exact same thing. In cases in which the condition requires long-term home care, then the single-payer system would need to be augmented, but in cases like this one the single-payer system would take care of the injured person's needs.

Another benefit of single-payer health care that I've been thinking a lot about lately is the end of a largely separate health care system for Veterans. The VA system has had many positives to it, and, for the foreseeable future, there will be a need for people who specialize in physical and psychological trauma common to veterans to be concentrated in special facilities -- but single-payer health care would end the current separate and unequal (worse) services provided to veterans.

[-..__...]

14. That might prevent some lawsuits...

instituting a "loser pays" system will prevent other frivolous lawsuits from being filed.

With regard to this case; I'm not a skier so I have no idea about the rules involved and/or behavior that takes place on the slopes.

From reading the story, it doesn't appear that any reckless, irresponsible or negligent behavior took place... it was just one of those "shit happens" kind of things that comes with the territory.

As far as how single payer health care applies to this case... should there be disqualifications if risky (or high risk), activities are involved (outside of ones occupation or work)?

Taking health care out of the equation altogether... requiring/mandating that skiers have insurance to cover themselves and other skiers in the event of bodily injury or death, would also have made this lawsuit unnecessary.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. I don't like "loser pays" at all. It simply...

discourages many valid, but tricky, lawsuits.

What is true, though, is that many lawsuits do arise simply to pay medical bills. Casualty companies recognized this years ago and considered themselves part of the social fabric-- filling in where other systems fell down.

That didn't work perfectly, of course, but few things do.

[-..__...]

19. If the case is "tricky"...

one has to wonder how valid the case is to begin with.

I look at that situation as... "well, you may or may not have a legitimate case, but don't worry... if we can't find a reason we'll
make one up".

The current system is to open to abuse.

Even if a case never sees the light of day or is eventually tossed for lack of merit, a defendant still has to hire an attorney and
take time from their lives to appear in court.

Even if it's an open and shut case in favor of the defendant, they can end up in financial ruin and have their lives turned upside down. The most recent example that comes to mind is the couple that owned the dry cleaners and were being sued by some parasite of a judge.

Solution (some would say),... the defendant can sue to recover any legal expenses and/or "pain and suffering"; and so the cycle continues.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. That's why we go to trial. The drycleaner nonsense was...

an aberration-- hundreds of thousands of suits are filed regularly, and most are settled out of court without financial disaster. Most that I have dealt with are perfectly reasonable, but "loser pays" would have stopped a lot of people from getting damages they were entitled to. (And I am talking from the perspective of an underwriter-- representing defendants, not plaintiffs)

Are their too many suits filed? Sure. Do I personally know people who make a living filing nuisance suits? Yes, I do. And, is the system screwed up? Yes, it is, horribly so.

But, The courts, insurance companies, and attorneys have been all over this for many years, and we have never come up with a reasonable solution. Everything we've come up with ultimately screws one of the parties more than they're being screwed now.

[JeanGrey]

54. You are right. Here is a perfect example. Last year my husband

and I were at the mall. The traffic ahead of us stopped fast, we did also (heavy traffic) the girl behind us wasn't paying attention. Screech and slam, she rear ended us, and pushed us into the car in front of us. Both my husband and I's glasses flew off our face from the force of impact.

The girl that hit us totaled her car. My Vibe actually did well, rear and front damage and the people we were pushed into, a couple of middle agers driving a really old car had a dent in their bumper. Everyone was ok. Our car sustained about 2 grand in damage. Lady that hit us ticketed for following too close and causing both wrecks (of course).

A year later we get notified that we are being sued! By the people we hit! They now claim that we "hit them first" and they sustained extensive damage (funny they were walking around) and their car had about 400 dollars worth of a bumper dent. They are suing us for 25 grand.

Tried to mediate this (by our insurance co and us telling them they don't have a leg to stand on) and it went nowhere. So on to court. I was undergoing chemo at the time, bald and sick. These people were such an embarrassment in court I thought the judge would have them locked up. Their case? (We felt an impact first. The "tilt" in our bumper proved we did it). The judge (who fortunately had a brain) reviewed the open and shut case and told them that frankly, he was tossing their suit and that they were suing the wrong people, that they should have sued the girl who hit us first and was ticketed.

Okay, wait for it. The man says "Oh we did, your honor, we already settled with her!

(I have never seen a judge have a stroke in court. This guys face turned about five shades of purple). He slammed the gavel down and said the case was dismissed and to basically get out of the courtroom, THEN they say "can we appeal?" The judge said through grit teeth "I WOULD ADVISE AGAINST IT".

Nonetheless it cost us (me in pain) time and energy and our insurance company a year of litigation defense to defend this.

Yes the suits suck. The only way they will stop is when people are FINED with court costs for bringing this garbage.

Brought to you by ever higher car insurance premiums.

[ProudDad]

98. How "republican" of you

"As far as how single payer health care applies to this case... should there be disqualifications if risky (or high risk), activities are involved (outside of ones occupation or work)?"

Bullshit!!! Who's going to determine what's "high risk" behavior. If I were on the board I'd consider gun ownership very "high risk" behavior -- you may not think so if YOU were on the board...

The only SAFE way to structure Universal Care is EXACTLY THAT -- Universal Care for anything no matter how it happened. Some folks are luckier than others, some are born unluckier than others -- are we a community or not?


"requiring/mandating that skiers have insurance to cover themselves and other skiers in the event of bodily injury or death, would also have made this lawsuit unnecessary."

Great plan for further enriching the health insurance mafia. So only the affluent are allowed health care if they are injured while skiing... How very republican...

[GirlinContempt]

136. There should never be disqualifications in universal health care

because you wouldn't be able to get help, and it's just wrong.

It's simple. Government paid health care for every citizen all the time.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. And what if the "single payer" decided not to cover...

long-term care arising from assumed risk?

A "single payer" could do everything evil the current insurers can, and there would be no other place to turn to.

[bean fidhleir]

30. The point is that sp would not be able to decide not to cover

care deemed medically necessary. That's the whole point: the treating doc, not a bean-counter, decides whether care is needed.

[TreasonousBastard]

34. Says who? And what treating doctor? I'm presently "covered" by...

the VA and they will only only use certain treatments, no matter what is avaiable elsewhere. Doctors will not prescribe other medications nor will they perform procedures not on the list. No matter how successful and accepted they are elsewhere.

Sometimes this works, other times you end up severely debilitated. Or dead.

Universal health care is one thing-- single payer is quite another. Don't confuse them.

[bean fidhleir]

35. The VA is not UHC. Jeez!

The VA is corporate controlled, like the rest of government right now.

[TreasonousBastard]

36. And so you want that expanded to everyone? Or do you...

have another single payer in mind?

Again-- universal does not equal single payer.

Single payer does equal monopoly, and that is usually seen as a bad thing.

[bean fidhleir]

73. Your thinking seems a bit skewed.

Yes, it would be possible to create another system as bad as the VA one, but that presumes people are stupid enough to accept such a thing. The shitty VA system survives because it's nearly invisible to most people. The same wouldn't be true if everyone were using it.

But maybe we're stupid enough to accept the VA as a standard, who knows. Let's go for single-payer UHC and see, shall we?

[TreasonousBastard]

79. OK, let's have one as good as...

Medicare, or Medicaid, or Aetna, or any of the other systems people have been "stupid" enough to accept.

[dysfunctional press]

88. medicare is FANTASTIC.

i'm with you- it SHOULD be extended to everyone.

[bean fidhleir]

117. Medicare is nice, but incomplete. It needs vision and dentistry.

Which, not coincidentally, are the two near-universal needs of people as they age.

[JeanGrey]

55. Yes and they will when those bills coming rolling in.

[timtom]

66. I believe you've been listening to the wrong candidates

Dennis Kucinich's plan is not about "single payer" insurance.

It's about "single payer" health care. No insurance.

[TreasonousBastard]

71. Several problems with that...

Single payer is single payer no matter what terms are used, and when you have a single payer, you have a monopoly.

I'm not listening to the "wrong" candidates, and I have little interest in any of their plans. None of their plans will ever see the light of day in their present form simply because of our political system-- whatever plan hits congress, it will be sliced and skewered and shrunk to fit however many congresscritters and their masters are needed for passage.

What I am doing is observing the three major Federal plans in effect right now, and while Medicare, Medicaid and the VA each have several good things going for them, I can't imagine any of these underfunded, politicized programs taking over all of US healthcare. And any single payer sytem we would end up with will certainly use one or all of them as models.

Again-- universal health care does not require single payer.

[timtom]

76. Exception noted.

I stand corrected (as I am a little fuzzy on the matter.)

[GirlinContempt]

137. Single payer:

A Canadian style system under which the government would pay for all health care with specially earmarked tax dollars. Government would set prices and impose regulations, but doctors, hospitals and other providers would remain in the private sector.
https://www.pbhi.com/providers_public/ResourcesReferences/HealthCareTerms/S.asp

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Then you elect a new CEO of the insurance company.

The insurance company could do all the evil things, but they're much less likely because:
a) their profit isn't tied to how many procedures they deny.
b) the ceo works for (and is hired by) us.

[TreasonousBastard]

82. Like the CEO of the country we "elected"? How many would...

be dead by then?

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. And if his malfeasance was transparently manifest

in peoples medical experience, something they experience daily, he'd have been gone in '04.

[ProudDad]

102. And where, bunky, do you turn to

when your insurance company tells you your cancer treatments will not be covered?

insurance corporations are by nature sociopathic entities interested in profit ubber alles and accountable only to their major shareholders!

A Universal, Single-Payer system will be accountable to the public!

[TreasonousBastard]

123. I'm admiring how accountable the governmemt is right now.

[ProudDad]

133. My Social Security Check

arrives on time in my bank account every month.

It was easier for me to sign up for Social Security than it used to take to get a refund at Circuit City for a defective product...


Fold the "private sector" 7 ways and stick it where the sun don't shine. They have NO accountability except to their fucking bean counters...and their bloated bottom line.

[default_to_freedom]

75. "It's another example of why we need real single-payer healthcare"

So, the rest of us should pay for this kid's mistake, eh?

I've got a better idea, why don't you stroke them a check.

[LostinVA]

80. oh brother

Yeah, because that's what single-payer healthcare is all about.

[dysfunctional press]

89. exactly.

when everyone pays for everyone, everyone pays less.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

92. You should get rid of that "me first, me now" attitude. Many of society's problems stem from that.

[GirlinContempt]

138. Yes, you should.

And, as much as you seem not very nice, people should pay for you when you get a debilitating horrible illness or injury.

[truthisfreedom]

5. Parents are responsible for having their children trained properly to ski. Crowded hills are

liability nightmares. This lawsuit, while bothersome that it's a child being sued, seems pretty rational when you consider that $35k of medical expenses have been incurred. If he can prove that his injuries were sustained during that accident, it seems reasonable and rational for him to attempt to sue to recover his losses. Children who cannot ski safely have no business on crowded hills, and should practice and train in areas where the likelihood of collisions is at a minimum.

[ClintonTyree]

6. Baloney....

even the most experienced skiers have accidents. And who is to decide at what point a minor is capable of tackling more difficult slopes? Shouldn't it be incumbent upon the operators of the ski slope to decide who should be skiing, and where? Apparently the kid broke no rules and is entitled to the full use of the facilities, just as is everyone else that bought a lift ticket.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who straps boards on their feet with the purpose of hurtling down the side of a snow covered mountain should take responsibility for the inevitable collisions and crashes that are bound to occur. The ski slope companies waive responsibility for skiers' accidents and everyone who goes down that mountain is aware of that. People who engage in risking behavior (and skiing IS risky behavior) should accept the consequences of enjoying their "sport".

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JeanGrey]

58. There is risky behavior, and risky behavior. Yes skiing can be

risky but like all sports it can be MORE risky if someone is acting recklessly as was claimed with this.

[djg21]

122. This is crap!

I ski, and have done so for my entire life. I've worked in the ski industry, and on ski hills for many years before attending law school. I even lived and worked for a time at the ski mountain at issue in the case described.

This case is not necessarily frivolous. There are a number of factual questions that need to be resolved before such a condemnation can be leveled. For instance, was the youth skiing out of control, was he on a trail that exceeded his abilities, were the parents derelict in supervising the youth, and what was the true extent of the injuries the youth caused to the other skier. If the youth was out of control and hit the other skier causing substantial bodily harm, the other skier certainly should sue the kid for damages, and the parents as well, given their per se negligent supervision of their child. Getting hit by another skier -- irrespective of that skiers age -- is simply not a risk assumed when one "straps boards on their feet with the purpose of hurtling down the side of a snow covered mountain." (BTW, typing posts on DU doesn't qualify as exercise). I am more than willing to take responsibility for my actions while skiing, and to assume the risks inherent in my sport. That being said, I do not agree to be a target for selfish and discourteous, out-of-control skiers/snow-boarders.

When one skis at a ski area he/she agrees to abide by simple rules of the road, just as one does when driving. Among other things, all skiers must ski in control, and an uphill skier must yield to a downhill skier. As a matter of common courtesy (and common sense), when overtaking another skier, a faster skier should make his/her position known with an "on the right/left," or in some similar fashion, to avoid a collision.
If a skier is unwilling or unable to adhere to these simple rules and courtesies, and ultimately injures another skier, he/she should be sued. In fact, I applaud such suits, as they will force all skiers to take responsibility for their conduct,and parents to assume responsibility for the behavior of their kids while at the ski hill.

[ClintonTyree]

124. Where the hell........

does this, "(BTW, typing posts on DU doesn't qualify as exercise)" crap come from? :wtf: You have absolutely NO idea what my exercise regimen consists of.

So many smug know-it-alls on DU, so few "ignore" options. :eyes:

[WinkyDink]

126. I'm married to a skier/former ski instructor who has had his share of spills. Yes, skiing is an

inherently dangerous sport, being in (relative) wilderness.

Nevertheless, we often sue in automobile accidents, particularly where recklessness is involved, do we not?
How about for botched surgeries, even given the release/understanding forms we sign?

[JeanGrey]

57. I tend to agree with your very reasonable post. If it were my

child I wouldn't want them skiing with the general population anyway at least until they had a minimum of control. According to this suit it wasn't just an "accident". The man claims the child was skiing "recklessly". That indicates, if true, a fairly competent skiier who was not being at least minimally careful and I would assume that is where the case will hinge. IF it can be proven the child was being willfully negligent or the parents were in not supervising the child.

Otherwise it would be just a plain accident, but I've always been of the idea that I am responsible for everything my child does as far as damage is concerned. It's just the nature of having a minor child.

After all, if someone slips going down my stairs that are icy, am I not responsible?

[DRoseDARs]

7. In what court is an 8-yr-old held legally culpable? n/t

[JeanGrey]

59. Parents will be responsible.

[LisaL]

69. The kid was only 7 at the time of the collision.

I am not so sure his parents would be liable for what he did because of his very young age.

[Pavulon]

9. Parents are responsible for the actions of their children

in this case. 50 - 100 lbs moving at 20mph is capable of breaking bones and causing serious injury.

If there are injuries the person who caused them (or in this case the parent) is responsible for making it right.

[JeanGrey]

60. Yes. Parents have paid the piper for a lot older children than

8. One of our family friends had to pony up child support for the offspring of their 15 year old child.

[happyslug]

132. Not under the Common Law, which is in the still the law in most states.

Parents are NOT responsible for the torts of their children (Tort is the legal name for this type of incident) unless their is some Statute making them liable. In my home state of Pennsylvania we have such a Statute but it is limited to $2000. In other words for any amount OVER that limit you have to look at the child.

Now, there are exception to this rule, for example when the Parent put the child up to something, but in the exception I know of it requires some POSITIVE act by the parent.

As to the Child, he can be liable if the Plaintiff can show he KNEW what he as doing was wrongful AND did it anyway. This is a LOT easier to prove then any Criminal Act by the Child, but even a Seven year old can have the Knowledge that what they are doing is careless and can cause harm to other people. Such knowledge is ALL that is needed to make the child liable.

Now collecting from the child is another questions. THey have no assets to have the Sheriff sell, they have no wages to attach. Children are in effect "Judgment Proof".

I suspect something else is involved here, probably a search for insurance to pay for the damages, but only time will tell.

[northshore]

10. Implied risk?

Is the doctrine of Implied Risk completely unknown in this Nation anymore?

After all, it's written right on your lift ticket!

[Samurai_Writer]

12. My son was paralyzed from midchest down in a ski accident

Maybe he should have sued the tree he ran into?

Skiing is a very dangerous sport, and as with any dangerous sport, you put yourself at risk of injury or even death. My son is living proof that people can overcome adversity brought on by such accidents. He's a successful engineer and triathlon athlete.

[JeanGrey]

61. Kudos to your son. It takes a LOT of guts and character to

overcome something like that. You obviously did something right as a parent!
:-)

[dysfunctional press]

86. totally different scenario...

now if the tree had ran into your son, he might have a case.

[CBHagman]

13. The injured man apparently...

...asked for help with medical bills first and got no response from the family.

I'm not in a position to judge the merits of this particular case, but I do find it disturbing that angry people try to destroy those they disagree with. Some of the harassers in this case want the man to lose his job over filing a lawsuit. They want to harm him.

And look at the hostile reactions to young Graeme Frost and his family during the SCHIP debate and votes. Do you remember the idiot poster on Redstate.com who recommended hanging the Frost family and leaving their bodies to be eaten by ravens?

The human race has been this vicious for centuries, though. It's only that we now hear about it all via the Internet.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Well if I had $35K in medical bills because of what someone else did

I would sue too.

Of course, universal health care (as someone else said) would solve this man's medical bill problem and greatly reduce the number of lawsuits clogging our courts.

[Mend]

22. they can afford to go skiing which is more than most people in the world

can do. Also, a lot of people have torn rotator cuffs...be interesting to know if that was the result of this accident or pre-existing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. So just because they can afford it they shouldn't sue?

[Mend]

25. in my opinion, yes, do not sue...there is enough grief in this world. Reassure

the little kid that everything is ok, mistakes happen.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. A kid should also be taught that when you make a mistake you fix it

This guy asked for help with his medical bills. There is no reason this kid's parents couldn't have offered a settlement.

I also think that someone's personal wealth shouldn't determine if they have a right to sue for damages in any situation.

[LisaL]

32. The kid was seven at the time of the collision.

The boy's father described the 48 pound boy going at 10 mph at the time of the collision. The boy's father also claimed the man grabbed this child after the collision, and dragged him.
If that actually happen, and the man did grab and drag the child, couldn't that be considered an assault?

"So what we have is Robb Swimm's account. He was 15 feet away from the accident. Here's what he says he saw.

On a fairly level stretch at the base of Arrowhead, Pfahler, skiing a few feet in front of Scott, turned and stopped. The 48-pound boy's skis passed over Pfahler's. The two got tangled up and fell.

Swimm estimates Scott was going about 10 mph.

Scott, who began skiing at age 3, got up, apologized and tried to ski off.

"That's when the guy grabbed my son around the legs, dragged him back down, cursed at him and threatened to sue him and his whole family," said Swimm, who skied over and told Pfahler to unhand the boy. What followed was a 20-minute argument and a visit from the ski patrol."


http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_7796412

[Yuugal]

74. He sounds like a prince

"That's when the guy grabbed my son around the legs, dragged him back down, cursed at him and threatened to sue him and his whole family," said Swimm, who skied over and told Pfahler to unhand the boy. What followed was a 20-minute argument and a visit from the ski patrol."

If someone grabs my 7 yr old around the legs and uses their 200 lb body to drag her down.......then curses at her.........hes going to have alot more than a bad shoulder to worry about.

[Tempest]

93. That's the FATHER'S story

Swimm is the father, in case you didn't know that.

How do you know he's not lying to make Pfahler look like the bad guy?

[CONN]

83. ?

If you offer to settle, then are you not accepting responsibility for doing a wrong?

[Girlieman]

141. And who's gonna pay the medical bills?

[joeglow3]

47. EXACTLY!!!!

My wife does collections for her office (on the days she is working at home). You would be amazed how many times she has been unable to get a hold of someone because they are on vacation (multiple times it has been Hawaii, cruises, Sandals resorts or out of the country). While I am all for making sure EVERYONE has medical coverage, I don't support dumbasses who are more concerned with a nice weekend on the slopes instead of making sure a fundamental need is met.

[JeanGrey]

62. If he had a pre existing torn rotator cuff I doubt seriously

he'd be doing much skiing.

[Mend]

119. depends on the size of the tear...it is very common and quite a few major

league baseball players play with them. If I was the defense attorney, I would get every medical record on him from day one and see if he ever complained of shoulder problems. Maybe it was from this little boy but it would sure be interesting if it was pre-existing as a lot of people in this age group including myself and my husband have some shoulder damage from ordinary life (not skiing). I hope we hear the final outcome of this case.

[Darth_Kitten]

130. the kid and his parents obviously can afford to go skiing as well.....

maybe should have left the darling at home.

[LisaL]

28. This guy wants the boy (or his family) to pay

the guy's wife for taking care of the guy when the guy got injured.
"Pfahler, 60, lives in Pennsylvania. The suit claims Scott's negligent skiing led to a collision that tore Pfahler's rotator cuff. It also seeks compensation for Pfahler's wife, Marlene Ambrogio, for "nursing, medical and other services rendered.""
And not just for medical services, but for other services rendered.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_7796412

[LisaL]

33. The guy wants his wife compensated for taking care of him.

[krabigirl]

41. You'd sue a child?!

[ejbr]

18. The lawsuit is wrong

it should be against the kid's father for improperly supervising his son. If the fault was with the boy in causing this avoidable accident, then I don't see why the victim has to pay for the other man's negligence in supervising his son. If I was the victim and had to pay for these injuries, I'd make sure that kid's father got a visectomy.

[THUNDER HANDS]

20. i'm sure the parents are named defendants

but the kid has to be in there too, since he will no doubt be deposed.

[LisaL]

27. Well, aren't you the smart one?

Do tell us, how are you going to supervise your child when he is skiing down the slope? I am guessing you yourself haven't produced any offsprings yet.

[ejbr]

29. No, you're obviously the smart one

Because in your twisted universe, people can have children who cause problems for other people, but not be responsible for any of it. You should stop having children too.

[LisaL]

31. It's rather obvious you haven't got any kids.

Keep it that way.

[ejbr]

43. And you keep your unaccountable brats away from me. n/t

[LisaL]

44. Well, that should be easy enough.

I'd bet kids stay away from you on their own.

[ejbr]

84. That's right, I'm an ogre

Making sure kids know the concept of "responsibility" is something children have an aversion to alright. That's why adults should demonstrate responsibility. Even IF it was an accident, as these things do occur, what type of role model is this kid's parents to lay all the financial onus on the senior? As an adult, I would see no reason not to pony up half the costs of the unfortunate incident. For an adult to teach his child not to do the same is crappy parenting, and one doesn't need to have kids to know this much. If this is what you are teaching your kids, I wish them luck. And the kid wouldn't have to go to court if the parents did the right thing. THEY are to blame for any trauma. Deal with it.

[LisaL]

100. The kid was seven at the time, or maybe you missed that part.

The article I found on the net says parents liability for what their kids do doesn't start until kid turns 8.
Now, maybe that article is wrong, or Co law is different, but if it's not wrong, then the parents of a seven years old would not be held liable for anything the kid did.

[ejbr]

103. Are you dense?

I am not talking legalities, I am talking what is the right thing to do. Or did you miss THAT part?

[Tempest]

112. Maybe not dense

But she does seem to have some personal stake in the case if her posts are any indication.

[LisaL]

115. And that is just a big fat bunch of baloney.

[orleans]

50. not everyone who has children is not mindful of others as well

(but i'm sure you know that)

i was always cautious about my daughter, but was always looking out for others as well, and made her pay attention to what she was doing so that no one else would be hurt.

it's just a matter of being vigilant and considerate of others--and consideration of others is something i wanted her to learn.

as far as this lawsuit--i think it's really shitty that the father ignored the man's request for help with his medical bills. someone above said if the man could afford to go skiing he could afford his medical bills. on the same hand, if the father can afford to take his kid skiing then he can afford to help with someone's medical bills when his child is the cause of another person's injury.

and if this man's total bill was the amount he is suing for then, according to what we've learned lately, his insurance company will take all the money as a reimbursement for what they paid out and the man will not see any of it.

[LisaL]

56. O'key.

The kid is skiing down the slope. The father is watching him.
According to the father, the kid was going slowly. Yet, it's a slope, the kid is on skis, the 60 year old is on skis, and the kid run into the 60 year old.
Do you have a concept of what an accident is?
And how exactly would it be possible for the father to prevent all possible accidents involving the kid, other than keeping the kid at home?

[orleans]

70. well, let's see...in answer to your question

it doesn't say how crowded the slope was--if it was my kid she would have to either wait till the area got clear or i would have her go down a less traveled area or whatever the fuck i had to do in order to avoid her running into older people--especially from behind!

jeez--it's just like sledding. you watch and wait for a clear spot

and, let me ask you this? do YOU have any idea what taking responsibility for your child's actions means? accident--ok. but to not even acknowledge this man's medical condition or bills? what the fuck kind of "adult" behavior is that? seems he is training his kid to be as considerate of others as he is. according to the article the father just blew this man off--i would imagine there would be no lawsuit if the father had been a stand-up guy about this situation and offered to pay for half the damage.

what do you think?

[LisaL]

77. What do I think?

All the emotions aside, it depends on what the laws are in Co.
The kid was only 7 at the time of the collision. Which means he might have been too young for his father to be legally liable for him.
A few of the articles I've read claimed that since this kid is a minor, he himself can not be legally sued under Co law.
That's what I think.

[ejbr]

85. I agree

It seems our counterpart wants children to live in some "idealized" world where "accidents" remove any responsibility whatsoever. People accidentally pull the triggers of guns, killing people. Do they not suffer the consequences of that "accident"?

I respect and honor the sensibilities of children, though someone on this thread may disagree, and would never intentionally make them feel bad about an innocent mistake. However, I think we agree that they should know responsibility and integrity, under any and all circumstances.

[orleans]

99. i also read in one of these links to this story that the kid was three feet

or a few feet behind this man. and his father was standing there watching him. why the hell didn't his father tell the kid to stop--watch out for that man--slow down--get away from that man? etc.

i work with a lot of kids (hundreds of them every year, actually) and i know that some of them need to be told to be mindful of other kids so that no one gets hurt. and 99% of the time their intention is not to harm anyone and when reminded, or having something explained to them, they are in fact more cautious.

i also think parents are a big factor as to how things like this go.

(example: i had a little boy who went up to another child, put his hands on the front of the other kid's shoulders and shoved hard enough to knock the kid over. i explained to the boy that he needs to keep his hands to himself, that he can't shove other people here, blablabla. he did it a second time to someone else--the second kid didn't fall but just stumbled backward. i told the little boy that if he did it again he would have to sit out and wouldn't be allowed to finish what we were doing. he did it a third time and knocked over a little girl. so--he was given a time out. he watched all the other kids and then when we changed activities and everyone sat down to take a break he began to cry--loudly. when the activity changed he was invited to participate again but preferred to sit and scream/cry. when i explained to his mother what had happened she said "his feelings were probably hurt." i thought about it later and wondered what the hell--a parent basically telling me i hurt her child's feelings by not allowing him to bully other kids. that's fucked up. thank god most of them are not like that.)

anyway, i was reminded of this when i read the story about the kid on the slope and his father & mother's comments.

[ejbr]

104. incredible n/t

[GirlinContempt]

144. I don't think

thousands of dollars in lawsuits are the way to teach children responsibility. People bitch and complain about parents sheltering their children, and advocate basically throwing kids to the wolves. Neither one is going to do service to the kids, and I can't imagine how his parents paying a huge incomprehensible (to an 8 year old on a kids allowance) sum of money is going to teach this kid anything about accidents. The collision itself would probably be lesson enough.

Whatever. I think it's absurd to shelter children from all responsibility and blame, and I also think it's absurd to treat them like miniature adults.

[downindixie]

23. Skiing is a very dangerous

Skiing is a very dangerous sport, and as with any dangerous sport, you put yourself at risk of injury or even death.

Maybe the court could look at it as something an old man shouldn't have been doing and that he is negligent too!

[CBHagman]

37. Read the articles.

Given the way people are reacting, I don't view the content of the articles so much as a sign of our litigious society or our need for a single-payer system (though I'd favor the latter) as it is of how quickly people turn nasty, judgmental, and vindictive, perhaps without knowing what actually happened.

Here's the bit from the Rocky Mountain News:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/24/kid-suit-sets-storm/

David Pfahler and his wife, Marlene Ambrogio, have had to leave their Allentown home for the holidays because people who got angry after reading the story tied up the family's phone lines using "robocalling" technology, or repeated, automated calls, attorney Jim Chalat said.

Others have called Reader's Digest, where Pfahler works, and demanded he be fired.

"I've never seen anything like it," said Chalat, whose Denver law firm also has received angry e-mails and calls.

Boy, people in this country are really into the Christmas spirit, aren't they?

Here's a quote from the boy's mother.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_7796412

Susan Swimm, Scott's mom, is furious. "It's ludicrous," she said. "This man should be drawn and quartered."

Oh, how lovely of her to recommend the hanging, emasculating, and eviscerating of her opponent. :sarcasm: Back away from the microphone, Mrs. Swimm, and please stop giving the nutjobs new ideas, will you?

[LisaL]

38. I've read the articles.

And I am wondering as to why this 60 year old man is suing an 8 year old boy, considering that the boy is a minor and can not be sued under Co law.

"Despite what Pfahler's attorney says, Colorado law states you cannot sue a minor, so the court could dismiss the portion of the suit filed against the boy."


http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=83291
Dah.

[JeanGrey]

63. The boy's mother thinks the man he injured should be

"drawn and quartered". Ah, now the chance that the kid was being reckless went up a notch.

[GirlinContempt]

143. I don't think an upset mother

making ill-considered and rude remarks means her SON is reckless. It means she's upset. Jesus.

[xchrom]

39. day-yum -- looks like some DUERS would have the guy ''drawn and quatered'' too.

[sarcasmo]

40. I gave this a REC, because it is one of the many problems with this country.

They were looking for someone to sue and the only person was the 8year old.

[wordpix]

42. out of control skiers/riders a re a big problem. Parents should have done all they could have to

compensate victim.

[LisaL]

45. The kid is 8. He can't be sued under Co law because he is

a minor.

[Nailzberg]

46. Takes a real big man to tackle down a 7 year old boy.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_7796412
"That's when the guy grabbed my son around the legs, dragged him back down, cursed at him and threatened to sue him and his whole family," said Swimm, who skied over and told Pfahler to unhand the boy. What followed was a 20-minute argument and a visit from the ski patrol.

Okay. I know skiers/boarders uphill are responsible for avoiding those downslope from them. So this kid was at fault for running into the man (or over his skis as this article says.) But to the grab the kid and drag him down? Far worse than getting your skis run over on a bunnyhill.

And my final thought: Who's to say the man didn't tear his rotator cuff reaching for, grabbing, and pulling the kid down by the legs?

[LisaL]

48. If the man did actually grab the kid,

then I think the kid's family should have called the police.
A grown man could get into real trouble with the law for grabbing kids.

[Tempest]

94. The only one making the accusation is the father

And considering what his wife said about the guy, I think he's lying his ass off.

[LisaL]

101. Unless you know of somebody else contradicting the father on this,

I fail to see how you can accuse the father of lying "his ass off."
I also fail to understand as to how many people you would expect to make an accusation, since the father was the one watching.

[Tempest]

106. I've seen it before

There are parents in jail for lying to police about their kids.

How do you know the father was watching? He could be lying about that as well.

[LisaL]

118. I can only go by what I read in an article.

Also, the ski patrol was called, and the 60 year old did find out the names of the kid and his father, otherwise he couldn't have sued the kid.
So, the father's story seems trustworthy to me.

[JeanGrey]

49. You don't sue the kid. You sue their parents. I've been surprised

that people are surprised at this. If you are in a grocery store for instance and your out of control child slams into you with a grocery cart knocking you down and injuring you, would you really think you wouldn't be liable for the actions of the minor child?

Now this was a skiing accident. So it would have to be proven that the child (as the man claims) was skiing recklessly. If the child was and the parent was near, sounds like liability to me.

A friend of ours 19 year old son was involved in a car accident and they sued the crap out of his parents because it was their car and he was under 21. I thought most people realized that parents are liable for kids? Heck even another friend has to pay child support for the baby his 15 year old fathered and of course can't pay for.

[orleans]

51. maybe in this case his lawyer advised him to put the child in the

lawsuit as well, considering the "rules" for the ski slope--

"Under the Colorado Ski Safety Act, children are just as responsible for their actions as adults, and they can be sued, according to case law cited by the lawyer."
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/24/kid-suit-sets-storm/

[LisaL]

53. Yet other articles claimed the minors can not be sued under Co

law.

[JeanGrey]

64. Yeah I did some surfing and saw that. Apparently under

that particular act kids are responsible and can be sued but I still think the parents will have to do the paying.

[LisaL]

65. Nah. Why doesn't the 8 year old just get a job?

:eyes:

[JeanGrey]

67. What does that have to do with anything?

Why didn't that 15 year old son of my friend just "get a job" to pay for his kid instead of his parents? Why shouldn't ANY minor do so? Are you being funny?

[LisaL]

68. I really don't know why the 15 year old son of your friend

didn't just get a job.
Your story was the first time I heard about parents paying child support for their kid's child.

[LisaL]

52. If you are in a store, and somebody's minor child slams

into you, causing you injury,I am pretty sure you could sue the store.

[orleans]

72. so you think this man in the article should sue the ski resort? n/t

[LisaL]

78. Well, somebody should correct me if I am wrong, but aren't

ski resorts legally protected from being sued?

[Xithras]

134. Yep.

Every ski resort I've ever visited has an iron tight release of liability printed right on the lift ticket. It's flapping at you all day while you ski, and you show it off every time you board a lift. The only suits against resorts that have actually survived involved gross negligence on the part of the resort operators (i.e., they forgot to post a cliff or they parked a grooming machine behind a snow pile in the middle of a run).

[treestar]

87. We learned in law school the first year

Kids are liable for their torts. So are insane people.

It's about negligence, not moral character. If you are ever sued, it does not mean you are a "bad person." It justs means you might have been negligent.

People get overemotional about this stuff. Everyone does negligent acts, only a few end up having the bad luck to have them harm somebody, but it's not a condemnation of the person.

And the plaintiff has to prove the case, and might not be able to. Really, there is no reason to attack a person just for suing.

[LisaL]

96. Have you actually gone to law school?

A few of the articles claim in CO minor can not be sued.
Are you saying these articles are wrong?

[treestar]

128. Law School is not a place where you learn the specific statutes of Colorado

Articles in newspapers are not authoritative sources of the law

The general rule is as I have stated. If there is a specific Colorado statute, cite it. If it provides that minors cannot be sued (which would be very odd), then the case would be dismissed, and my other points remain the same. Kids can be sued or sue, but they can't do it themselves, obviously. They need a guardian ad litem. This is also the case for incompetent people, or missing people, in some states.

Really, your snide remark does your point a disservice. It illustrates that you have no idea what even goes on in law school. You probably think that law is just "paperwork" and if you ever need a lawyer, will try to treat them as if they are a just a secretary. When that doesn't work out well, you'll just condemn the profession generally.

[stubtoe]

90. Anyone who has ever been hit by an out of control kid on a ski slope

has had that thought pop through their mind. at least for a moment.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

113. very true.

but the ski area may have some responsibility, if they did not have patrols out, removing out of controllers, or keeping the number of people on a slope reasonable. Of course the small print on the lift ticket is enough to fill a telephone book.

[CONN]

91. So we have ...

Mr Pfahler's attorney in this matter, Jim Chalat, specializes in suing ski areas and skiers (http://www.chalathatten.com/Bio/JamesChalat.asp). Not that there is anything wrong with that.

The boy's father, Robb Swimm, works as a bell hop at a Vail hotel.

Mr Pfahler works Readers' Digest, a major publication, is seeking compensation for lost vacation expenses, for the care his wife gave him, and other costs. Does he have health insurance?

Mr Pfahler who is a "aggressive recreational skier" signed a waiver that he understood the risks, etc... He was hit on a "cat walk" or a green run. It is hard to get a fast speed on the runs at Beaver Creek.

Did he injure is shoulder grabbing the kid?

[Tempest]

95. Did he actually grab the kid?

The only one making that accusation is the father.

[LisaL]

97. I have no clue as to how many people you would expect to make

the accusation. The kid's father was a witness.

[Tempest]

107. How do you know he witnessed it?

It seems you're blindly believing him with no evidence.

[CONN]

105. You think the father is a liar?

You bring up the possibility in another post. How about the possibility of the old man telling a lie? I think judgment of someone looking to get compensation for his wife is more questionable. No?

[Tempest]

108. They could both be lying

Compensation for caregivers is common in lawsuits when there's an injury.

You're condemning him for something thousands of Americans have done over the years, and something judges and juries have allowed.

[CONN]

109. Yes they both could be lying.

I'm not condemning just questioning his judgment. And it could all be OK, if say he couldn't function and his wife missed work to care for him. My understanding is that is not the case. Drag the boy into court. Sue his parents. That'll teach him to not apologize next time. Heck his parent should press charges of assault and counter sue for mental damages

[Tempest]

110. Counter sue for mental damages?

After what the wife said about him?

Good luck with that.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

111. many years ago, when I had no fear, I was teaching a friend how to ski.

at the bottom of the slope, I taught the basics, how to fall, how to stand up, how to hold your stance, to stop, to turn, When he was ready, we got in line for the lift. Some maniac on top of the slope had no ski brakes, nor did he have safety straps. Standing in a crowded lift line, with no place to go, we watched the guy fall, and then as a free ski started down it seem to nose towards us, closer and straighter. It moved faster, faster, ever faster, until we both realized it was heading directly for us. Smashed into my friend's boot, breaking his leg.

He hadn't even gotten up the mountain once.

He never sued me and he never learned the name of the asshole skier. Then again, he never spoke to me again, either.

[LisaL]

114. Just out of curiosity, WTF do you think your friend could

have sued you for?
And if he never spoke to you again, because of some maniac you had no control over, then you two probably weren't very good friends to begin with.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

116. actually,

I think his not talking to me had something to do with my seeing his sister.

[galileo3000]

121. I can't support this lawsuit.

I think this will not help our society, and I don't think that it was wise to go after an 8 year old. This seems to be one of those lawsuits that creates support for torte reform. Hoping it is thrown out for more worthy uses of the court's time.

[WinkyDink]

127. Redress of grievances IS a "worthy" use "of the court's time." Sorry.

[Girlieman]

142. Amen. That's what they're paid to do.

[galileo3000]

129. Opportunistic Retalitory Litugation is very bad for America!

[Xithras]

139. Did it occur to anyone that the lawsuit may be REQUIRED?

A couple of years ago my son was injured by a "faulty bed" at a hotel in San Diego. We were in a family suite with a bunkbed equipped kids bedroom and the frame to the top bed failed with my son on it. He was knocked unconcious and suffered a concussion when his head slammed into the nightstand on his way down.

Now, in reality, I didn't plan on suing. The "faulty bed" failed because my then-8 year old kid was JUMPING on it, and my insurance covered all expenses across the board. The hotel, to their credit, changed us to a larger and better suite for the rest of our stay AND refunded ALL of our room charges. I considered it a wash and planned on forgetting about it.

Then my insurance company got involved. It turns out that Blue Cross has a line item in their coverage plan that allows them to force a lawsuit (or assume lawsuit rights) for damage recovery if a claim is caused by an at-fault third party. Blue Cross demanded that either WE sue the hotel, or that we assign them rights to sue on our behalf. We decided to assign the rights and be done with it. Blue Cross sued the hotel and the hotel settled for damages (I don't think the hotel even fought it, they just paid the claim).

If we had failed to allow the lawsuit, Blue Cross would have sued US to recover the money.

[Girlieman]

140. A Small Price to Pay

What is the annual cost of frivolous lawsuits? $100 Million? $300 million? I doubt it's more. That's about 1 dollar per citizen. A small price to pay for an open court system, which is one of the bulwarks of our freedom against total authoritarianism.

The administration loves to see stories like this. If it was up to them, they would prefer that the courts be open solely to corporations and settling commercial disputes. Pay close attention to what Musharaf is doing in Pakistan -- he's going after the judges and lawyers. He's not going after CEO's and insurance companies. The former are incompatible with a dictatorship, but the latter can get along just fine with one.

I'd stop worrying about the trifling amount spent on so called frivolous lawsuits and focus on the many hundreds of billions being stolen from us in this so called war on terror.