Lawsuit Against Utah Ski Resort Revived
Court Alerts
Skiers assume the potential for injury when they try to navigate a steep mountainside, but not all risks are inherent, the Utah Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against a resort.
William Rothstein suffered severe internal injuries when he skied into a wall at Snowbird in February 2003. He sued and claimed the resort was negligent.
A lower court had said Snowbird Corp. was protected from a lawsuit because of two waivers signed by Rothstein when he obtained a season pass at the popular resort near Salt Lake City.
The high court overturned that ruling and said the releases go against a state law that is designed to keep insurance rates affordable for resorts but not shield them from all liability.
The releases signed by Rothstein "are contrary to the public policy of this state and are, therefore, unenforceable," the 3-2 decision said.
Snowbird spokeswoman Laura Schaffer said the resort doesn't comment on pending litigation.
In court papers, the resort maintained Rothstein skied off a connecting trail to an area that was marked off by rope. But the rope had a gap, which Rothstein mistook for an entrance to an open trail. He hit a wall made of railroad ties that was obscured by a light covering of snow.
Snowbird won the earlier ruling on two releases Rothstein had signed, assuming all risks and specifically mentioning cases "including the negligence of Snowbird, its employees and agents."
The Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday restores Rothstein's lawsuit and clarifies state law.
"What it will do is to encourage ski resorts to be more careful in their operations," said Jesse Trentadue, an attorney for Rothstein.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court Asked to Hear Zoloft Case
Court Alerts 12/18/2007[##_1L|1102819931.jpg|width="130" height="94" alt=""|_##]Attorneys have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of a teen sentenced to 30 years in prison for killing his grandparents when he was 12, arguing that the sentence is cruel. Christoph...
-
Third Guilty Plea in Calif. Terror Case
Court Alerts 12/18/2007[##_1L|1258392267.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]A third man accused of plotting to attack Southern California military sites and other targets pleaded guilty Monday to a terrorism conspiracy charge in federal court. Gregory Vernon Patterson,...
-
Jail former lawmaker, judge asks U.S. court
Court Alerts 12/17/2007Former U. S. Rep. Tommy Robinson would spend six months in jail if a federal district judge agrees with a recommendation outlined Friday in U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In overruling Robinson’s request to sue two of hi...
Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.
Business News
404
Not Found
The resource requested could not be found on this server!