UKH

I've seen a few headlines for this Paltrow skiing accident and haven't read any further, nor do I care much about their specifics.

But this does raise a question. Should you be able to sue for a skiing accident?

I would have thought if you choose to ski, you accept that you are skiing with others at different abilities and accidents can and do happen.

Same with scrambling. Let's say someone knocks a rock loose and it hits me in the head. Surely I've signed up to this risk by scrambling in the first place and I shouldn't be allowed to sue.

Back to skiing, if I'm on a public footpath and someone suddenly takes me out on skis when not in a ski resort, I can see a case for it. I've signed up to walk and not dodge skiers.

Clearly this is not how the law works but interested to know what others think?

I live in a small ski resort (France) & have a lift pass for the winter. But I rarely piste ski during a couple of weeks during the French February school holidays when its crowded  but more importantly has a lot of skiers who ski far too fast on pistes mostly used by beginners & although I suspect they think they are good skiers, they are often not really in control much of the time. So there are many accidents. If I was injured by one of these idiots I'd expect to be able to sue for damages.

You absolutely should be able to sue for a ski (or any activity) accident where someones negligence leads to actual cost/loss of income to you. Think about driving and car accidents for example - just managed by insurance companies rather than the court system.

Agree, because it's a) not negligent to knock a rock off, it's inherent to the activity, and b) as you say, you have signed yup for this.

Why does your mode of transport matter? Someone's negligent has hit an injured you. The rules are that you ski in control and in response to others. If you aren't doing this, it's negligent. 

It's not like driving a car, where the object is to get from A to B, and everyone is supervised until they reach a required standard.

Sliding down a hill repeatedly for fun is an inherently dangerous activity, and unless you're already an expert skier, if you're not making mistakes, you're not skiing hard enough to get the most fun and learning.

For a beginner skier, most accidents will be at low speed, but for an intermediate skier, mistakes at speed will happen, and sometimes someone else will get caught up in that mistake.

That's not negligence, it's a feature of the busy environment of learners and improvers that you signed up to be part of when you stepped onto the piste.

Anyone going resort skiing and worried about potential loss should be taking responsibility to insure themselves against that loss, and not turning the piste into an ambulance chasing lawyer's wet dream.

I would say it depends. This was supposed to have happened on a beginners slope so you have possibilities.

A beginner careening out of control. If so tough luck and hopefully they wont have got the speed up to do serious injury.

A skiing god having come down from the higher slopes at high speed and taking out a beginner. In this case there would be a reasonable argument they are to blame.

For a scrambling/climbing scenario the rock lose would be very unlikely to be at fault (unless it was clear you pulled it clear for some reason) but say I decided to jump across to your route and knocked you off then again it would be reasonable for you to be upset

And if it happened at Deer Valley you could be pretty sure they could afford it.

Which you should do either under instruction, or where it is safe. A busy beginner slope, filled with novice skiers, is not the place for that.

It's a poor choice of place to practice your skills. So IMO it is negligent - the risk can be minimised by practicing your skills not in the beginner area! (Which will also help you progress faster...)

And if insurance thinks that someone else is responsible for the cost to them, they will try to recuperate that cost. The rule of the ski slope is that a) you ski in control, and b) if you are the uphill skier you are the one responsible for not crashing. Yes, its annoying and hard to judge when beginners turn erratically and ski across the entirety of the green run, but nonetheless it is the responsibility of the experienced skier to not crash into them and regulate speed as such to minimise risk. Vis-a-vis ambulance chasing lawyers - I agree, any suing should only cover actual costs (i.e. not the ridiculous claim that this specific lawsuit began as).

TLDR if you are competent and smash into a beginner at high speed on a green run, it's almost certainly your fault. 

 Not true, and that is a bit insulting to those of us who take every step to avoid knocking rocks off and have felt a shame over even dislodging a pebble over the decades.

It is an inherent risk but the knocking off is not inherent.  And it could be actionable if there was recklessness or negligence involved where the risk to others was clear and obvious

I know, I know, it's a link to the Guardian.  But trust me, everything you need to know is in here - read this one!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/28/gwyneth-paltrow-ski-o...

Being able to sue for negligence after a skiing collision doesn't imply that someone is to blame for each and every sking collision. The standard of evidence required to demonstrate negligence or malice should be much higher in any situation with inherent risks already implicitly accepted.

For example, being taken out on a blue run by a skier who was on their first ski trip would be very unlikly to make it to court, whereas being taken out on the same run by a highly experienced skier with a strava history of trying to set record times on blue runs and video evdence of very high speed at the point of collision most likely would do.

Toe-curling.  You would have thought it should be straightforward, and turns on the simple fact of who was the uphill skier.  They both claim they were downhill and were crashed into, so someone's lying.  Paltrow's weirdly sexualised version implies that her first thought was that it was deliberate sexual assault, Anderson says he heard a 'blood-curdling' scream and can't remember what happened next.  Not sure I believe either of them, but there's an eye witness...  

Come on... Marina is a brilliant satirist, irrespective of one's view of the Grauniad.

Brilliant article. Thanks 

And then insurer may then choose to sue.

The OP's case is in the US, and involves a personal suit against a rich celebrity. I'm getting a whiff of something here (and it's not geraniums), especially having seen some of the claimant's testimony...

2/10 troll

It's possible they traversed into each other and were equally to blame (I don't know about the specifics of this case).

The one thing they appear to agree on is that this isn't what happened, which isn't to say it's not possible!

The one thing they agree on is it was the others fault.

As a famous actress she's probably encountered some sexualised weirdoes over the years.

Sure enough, a quick search finds she had a stalker for 17 years who admitted sending her sex toys, porn and countless marriage proposals. 

Plus there was Harvey Weinstein.

Thinking it might be deliberate sexual assault is a fairly logical reflection of her actual experience. 

Of course you should, pistes have rules they are everywhere, purchasing a lift pass is agreeing to them. Piste have grades marked etc.. so there is no excuse for going beyond your ability. The uphill skier is duty bound to avoid the lower skier, it's also international. As in the current case on a green a competent skier should be looking everywhere and whilst not duty bound to avoiding a kamikaze skier isn't hard. Her looking at her kids is also no excuse either. 

Sadly the uk and a few other countries that have limited snow make the worst ski tourists, they confuse going fast in a straight line and stopping abruptly right at the lift queue with competency. The same people who idle around shops with trolleys in a day dream whilst everyone else avoids them also make poor skiers! (Sorry rant over.... hopefully) 

Deer Valley is also the least crowded, most genteel place I've ever skied and most of it* is wide, easy and immaculately groomed. 

My experience has been with capable French skiers using people as slalom markers, coming far too close. I remember one doing it to me whilst I was accompanying beginners, and having him very surprised when I caught him up and gave him a bollocking. Dickheads are international.

I'd separate dickheads and unconscious incompetence, of course some skiers are both. 

I think the reality is she was too wrapped up her world, helmet on, goggles down etc.. looking at her kids, everything else around her wasn't even registering. You see it all the time in the alps, parents who aren't always the most agile on the slopes, trying to watch and or film their kids, whilst dozens of people around them carry out avoiding actions. 

Dave

Does Deer Valley still ban snowboarders, it did when I was there many years ago. I was told they used to sneak in from the top Park City and then enjoy being chucked out. I was on a pair of planks, staying in Park City, so didn't have the opportunity to test the truth of this.

Had a couple of days skiing in Deer Valley and cannot remember anything of the skiing, no memorable runs.

John

We booked a private beginners ski lesson at a UK based indoor ski centre. While standing still on the slope at a point selected by the instructor, my partner got wiped out from behind by an out of control skier from another instructed group.

My view is that the ski centre is at fault, not the learner under instruction. 

However it would never have occurred to us to sue, despite the fact that the injuries my partner sustained took a few months to recover from. But I guess that's a difference between UK and US approaches.

Still planks only and only $260ish/day. 

That's because the UK has free healthcare. If you just paid $1000s in the emergency room and follow up care, physical therapy etc, you or your health insurance might be inclined to sue for that. If your insurance decides to sue you don't get a say in the matter. I don't think that's the situation in the Paltrow case though, they just sound like loons trying to raise their profiles.

Absolutely. In a country where you can end up pennieless and destitute due to accident or injury*, people sue because they have to. 

 things has quite far-reaching consequences accross all of life, and tends to wacks a hefty insurance cost onto everything. 

NHS - you don't know what you've got till it's gone. 

*Not sure about this Charlie 

What does negligence mean in the skiing example. If I ski on purpose very fast and close to a group of kids but get it wrong and hurt them, then that is reckless, and therefore negligent.

But what if I get on the slopes and for whatever reason loose control and take somebody out. It wasn't careless or reckless. Incompetence maybe, but incomitance isn't negligent.

I think it's very dependent on the situation. I can't help but think in this case there is a bit of twisting going on between stories knowing a millionaire could potentially pay up!

But one of the oddities in this case is that the claimant is only looking for $300k damages, which by American standards, is very small beer. (Although he did previously sue her for $3.1million in 2019, which is still quite a small sum by US standards.)

What does this actually mean?

Not sure she needs ski gear to achieve that.

Why would you assume anybody should be at fault? If there's a need, or even an advantage, for an instructed group to be stationary for a while on the slope, this will be balanced against the potential risk of another (instructed or not) skier not being able to avoid that group. I would hope that such a risk would be part of a risk assessment, but that does not mean that somebody would be at fault when it occasionally might happen.

Most "green" beginners areas are "slow skiing areas" almost anywhere in the world. There is no more excuse for ploughing into others skiers (who are in front) in a green area than running into parked cars when driving in a 30 mph zone in the UK. (The rules and observational skills required for skiing and driving cars are actually pretty similar.)

Well, the jury found entirely in her favour. She's asked for $1. And legal fees...

"A jury has determined that Paltrow was not at fault and says that Sanderson is at fault '100%'.
Each member of the jury is now confirming that they voted along those lines."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65127388

Doesn't seem right. I'm not sure how you can make a digital film of your version of events, it's almost implying you've real footage when the content maybe entirely fictional. Money buys innocence. 

What happened to the eye witness, as referenced by Dave Garnett above https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/recent_news_-_suing_for_a_skiin...?

Without independent eye witness evidence it does sound like it was basically one person's word against the other - except that the rich one had a digital animation based on their version of events as well.  It would be a bit worrying if the jury turned out to have put the greatest weight on the version that they'd seen on the telly... 

Hard to know, but if he was suing her just for the cash you'd think he'd have been in court quicker than 7 years. Police use reconstructions as evidence of car crashes etc.. but they base theirs on final positions of vehicles, measurements, skid marks, independent witnesses etc..  it's a clever tactic on her part, she must be right they've even made a film etc.. he's just claiming because she's rich.. probably not hard to swing a jury, humans are bias and vulnerable to it, even if we like to think we aren't. 

At what level would you have considered it? 

Genuine question. I worked for a while as a brain injury specialist physio, specifically with those who had a compensation package. It changed my opinion about compensation markedly. 

Unable to do activities that are important to you, your physical and/or mental heath? Affecting work? Daily pain?

I think the American system ( which I don't know much about tbh) seems a bit over the top. But our attitude of someone else causing us injury and it being 'one of those things' and carrying on with or suffering without help is just as silly to me.

Accidents happen - none of us are perfect all the time. Muriel Gray won my undying respect for the way she dealt with the life changing injuries suffered by her daughter.

Only they aren't usually accidents, car crash, ski collision etc.. somebody 99% of the time went too fast, weren't looking, ambition over ability, ignore signs, distracted etc...

A ski accident, a skier turns but their binding breaks they shouting a warning but it's too late.  A car brakes, hits unseen oil and loses control. Most accidents aren't accidents though. 

I haven’t kept up with the proceedings but I think I read that the witness had a connection with Sanderson, maybe even related, so not an independent witness.

Your examples may still be accidents. An accident just means it was unintentional. Going too fast doesn't make the injury intentional.

Yes but thats part of why the police for example have moved away from using "accident" and started using "collision" or "crash" etc.

Someone doing 100mph past the local primary at end of day is unlikely to have intended to hit the lollipop lady and half a dozen kids but they could have easily avoided it.

True, but I think it's a false equivalence with driving. As a driver you are trained to a certain level of competence and agree to abide by the highway code so not doing so is negligence.

Unless you are a trained skier the same doesn't apply. 

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/recent_news_-_suing_for_a_skiin...

I think I'll rely on the jury, since they have heard all the evidence, and I've only seen a few minutes worth. From what i did see, I'd have agreed with the jury...

https://www.skiclub.co.uk/info-and-advice/before-you-go/on-piste-safety

Not strictly true. You might not be a trained cyclists but you can't go slamming into people either. I think views towards skiing are quite uk centric, as so many from the uk ski half cut / hung over, barely in control, it's a social event not a sport to many.

Funnily enough although I still don't completely agree with you, I saw a stupid incident here (La Plagne) this afternoon. A Brit student, who I think had had a drink or 2 but certainly couldn't ski, came hurtling down a nursery slope, totally unable to steer or stop, and crashed through the barrier at the bottom, completely taking it out. My 5 and 8 year old grandchildren had been skiing there moments before (rather more in control, it has to be said.) Her mates thought it was a great laugh.

You seem to have a bit of a downer on UK skiers...

We don't generally start skiing in school, so many adults start as complete beginners. Beginners can easily get out of control; it doesn't need booze (which you seem to think is the main problem: I note the piste restaurants all serve booze...). They are just being encouraged to develop too quickly, and don't have the skills to control themselves when their skis run away with them.

Local kids who learn as toddlers pick these skills up before they can hurt anybody (they don't have the mass, nor the velocity to do that), but I have seen plenty of kids out of control. Their advantage is that they can simply fall over without injury (like little Weebles), whereas an adult probably wouldn't get away so lightly, so they try to stay on their feet. Fortunately, I learned very early on to do a hockey stop, when I started skiing at 33. And I'm naturally cautious, and never drink during the day.

If you’re still remotely interested the witness I was thinking of was a guy called Craig Ramone, who was a friend of Sanderson’s.  His testimony apparently defied the laws of physics.

Even allowing for quantum effects?

Oops.. sorry, wrong thread.

No, I just see many adults who ski from parts of northern Europe which don't see much snow who are less competent and more dangerous than they realise. The uk doesn't have a monopoly on it.

Totally agree and many adults aren't prepared to pay for any lessons once they can survive getting down the hill.

I agree, but skis don't run away on their own.

Of course, immaturity, risk free, feeling less responsible etc... kids are learning. What's the adults excuse?

I'm not knocking your skiing and you sound aware of what is going on around you, but I can stop is the trap many novice skiers fall into. It's not the answer to going fast barely in control. A competent skier should never need to emergency stop in the first place. Head up all the time, read the slope, spot the beginner group traversing, anticipate a crazy Ivan or a fall, short turns, long turn, carve, or turn and scrub off speed, see the piste to the side merging in... and you'll never need to hard stop. Even when you reach the lift there's no need for a harsh stop as speed should have been dialled down on approach anyway. Sorry ranting.. it must be an age thing. 

I do tend to avoid peak season and holidays now, plus often aim for places that are either cold or have expensive alcohol.... it seems to work as a filter. 

They do if you haven't yet grasped how they work; if you don't really understand about pointing them downhill, if you can't read slopes properly, and don't know how to turn out of going downhill at speed.

My point about children is that, like all learners, they get out of control too. But the consequences are less severe. Learners are not yet competent skiers.

I wasn't taking your comments as a personal criticism, since I know I am cautious and can ski moderately well. My hockey stop comment was not about stopping to prevent collision, but to stop myself if I felt out of control when learning, regardless of the presence of other skiers. I just thought you were being a bit unfair on learners; maybe you have forgotten how alien skiing was as a rank beginner? I spent many years paying back the help friends gave me, by helping other new skiers (as in my 'slaloming Frenchman' example above).

I'm not against learners at all, of any age, it's adults who are poor dangerous skiers but don't realise it and or think they don't require more tuition that are hazardous. Those still actively learning are almost always aware of their capabilities and are conscious to moderate their own speed in beginner environments and pick suitable slopes. I still have the odd one 2 one lesson myself, learn new things and be reminded of engrained bad habits I repeatedly find hard to eradicate, my kids are teens now, so I've been through the whole ski school, beginners areas thing.... relatively recently.

Unsurprisingly when helping others kids are much more receptive to subtle coaching, my brother's brother-in-law is a bit of nightmare, we were all at the same place once, day 1 I had my brother on green and blue, all the basics, instill good drills, easiest use of lifts etc.. everything need to get lots of low grade mileage in, day 2 this muppet took him on black when the guy himself is survival skiing black anyway. Never again.