OK. So I get it now. Insurance, if she had it, would have paid out and should have covered most of her medical expenses. She was after the resort for greater compensation over and above her medical expenses. She was injured and I feel sorry for her that she sustained those injuries and hope she wasn't too badly affected financially. It's always hard to gauge the mental scars. I can certainly see merit in her case but I must admit I do agree with the judge, collisions and injuries are part of the gig. Most of us would have sustained injuries while skiing in bounds. I know I have, it comes with the territory. I'm not a fan of the ambulance chaser mentality and I am aware of some people being cajoled down that path. I hope she had a no win no pay clause, because she's going to be out of pocket even more with the decision. You put yourself in the position by partaking in a potentially dangerous pursuit, then if the shit hits the fan, you have to take responsibility for the consequences. So if any clown skiing/boarding way too fast for their ability almost to the point of criminal negligence which I have seen many times totally out of control and mows over and older skier, child or anyone you better have full insurance cover. The resort isn't responsible which I suppose is fair, it's the individual who is responsible, so your course of action would be to sue them for damages, if that was necessary. There really are no winners in this one. I'm sure the resort isn't popping champagne bottles, they certainly don't want these things to happen to their patrons. Footnote: instructors need to regularly look in the opposite direction to the one they are travelling in to keep an eye on their students. I understand "fast" is a relative term which varies according to skill level and is situational as well. In control is probably a more appropriate term.
In the past there has been a lot of worry that skiing and other recreational activities like swimming, diving etc would be "sued out of existence" by frivolous lawsuits along similar lines to this, and no land manager or owner would allow anything "fun" ever again out of fear of being held responsible. I remember talk that the lift ticket disclaimers "weren't worth the paper they were written on" and you would still be technically able to sue the heck out of the resort for any misadventure to happen to you. There was a joke about the "Australian management plan" where you put a sign saying an activity is banned, and then turn a totally blind eye, as that was the only way to allow something to occur on your land but insulate yourself from ruinous lawsuits. E.g. the infamous Manly harbour jump rock in Sydney. Clearly, it turns out this was far from the truth. Are these "dangerous recreational activities" provisions fairly new? It sounds like there's now opinions that it's swung back too far the other way, and you can be negligent and ruin someone's life, and get away with it "Whoops! It was just an accident".
The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Defendant's costs so she'll be liable for Perisher legal expenses unless a costs variation was sought and granted.
there was a case a while ago where a guy dived into the surf at Bondi when the water was very shallow and ended up paraplegic - following is my possibly-inaccurate recollection he sued the council for not having a warning sign (I think they actually did have a sign but he hadn't seen it) there was a big $$ decision in his favour but it was later overturned on appeal, which might be a point at which these cases started turning out differently at about the same time, a teacher sued Perisher because he used a sign as a toboggan and injured himself - I think that decision went against him? it's possible to take a 'shit happens' view of this, but if you've ever seen the disability service system in action you would know that it's better to get a payout via insurance or a court case than to wait in line for a service while the NDIS is meant to address this problem, it will always be trying to catch up to the need
The amendments to the Civil Liability Act are maybe 20 years old. The concern was not that adventure sports would be sued out of existence but that they would be insurance premiumed out of existence. I would not be surprised if the insurance industry did a bit of manipulation here. It is interesting that the only confessed ambulance chaser here - me - supports the idea that if you take a risk you accept the consequences of that risk. All the punters (who probably harrumph in their beers about evil ambulance chasers) are busy promoting the right to sue.
The old adage "One can never be too careful" Many people stop skiing due to the increasing crowding and low skill high speed cohort. This case involved two long term late middle age experienced skiers with a gazillion and one turns between them on an open high visibility slope.
The Bondi case was Swain. Awful decision. Apparently the Council hadn’t properly groomed the sand banks between the flags to ensure the gradient was even or some such ridiculousness. I don’t recall the outcome of the appeal. The Perisher Toboggan case went against PB.
It’s so long ago I can’t clearly remember. I struggled with my respect for the legal profession though with those two decisions, Swain in particular. Edit no it seems Swain was affirmed https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...ffs-are-losers-after-drastic-tort-reforms/amp
I have no issue with the assumption of risk, but I feel like there should be a distinction made between the risks that I have the capacity to manage, and those that are outside my control. THere is also the assumption of risk on the part of other participants, in that if they cause a collision or harm another participant, they then bear the consequences of that.
While travel insurance might help overseas, skiing domestically for a season, not so much. There is private health insurance and Medicare, which always has out of pocket expenses. There is income protection and some sort of business protection I guess for the self employed, usually comes with waiting periods. Even an injury sustained overseas will only cover emergencies, ongoing treatment in australia is not covered by overseas travel insurance. Nothing specifically that I can find which will cover you for an injury while skiing. There are any number of organisations that offer similar for cycling. In this case there have been multiple surgeries with resultant physical therapies to regain the fine motor skills required to operate a pair of scissors for commercial gain. The injury is real, the ongoing pain and effects are real, the mental health effects are real, the economic loss is real. I have no doubt her (and her skiing buddy’s) version of the events are real.
The lump sum is quite small from those I looked at, not useful without income protection as well. I can’t find anything that would have covered Deb 100% from her injuries. The benefit I can see from having an income protection claim is I expect the insurance co would try and mitigate their loss by following up the negligent party legally.
Ahh yes, "Insure against personal injury", that well known step on the hierarchy of Risk Management. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_controls
Look further. Or see a broker. It's a heck of a lot higher than hoping that the turkey that runs into you has insurance or decent net assets. Where does that fit into your hierarchy?
Sad reality, unfortunately, even if it’s not your fault you may not always get compensation, unless you have your own coverage.
You are both forgetting that part of the point of legal damages is to pay for past and future care if needed and for most catastrophic injuries this can be very expensive. At least NDIS is meant to provide some of this now whereas before it depended on having someone to sue and/or insurance. Is this in right thread?
forget the definitions, but negligent is more what you don't do, and reckless is about the thing you did do (beyond the behaviour of a reasonable person)
Does anyone here ski thinking if someone hits them and injures them that they could successfully sue the resort (instructor or otherwise)? I certainly don’t.
If you went to woolies and one of their employees ran a trolley into you and caused an injury, who would you approach for compensation? How about if the trolley guy ran them all into your car? Employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.
But, each time you enter Woolies, do you think "If a checkout chick injures me, I can sue", which was Karicta's point.
