« Bus driver pulls over, propositions undercover officer | Main | Elderly man locked up for messy yard gets help from jailers »
Skier, 8, sued over collision with 60-year-old man
Scott Swimm, who was 7 at the time of the ski hill crash, told the man he was sorry and started to ski away. But the man grabbed Scott’s legs, cursed at him and said he would sue him. "I was really scared," says the boy. (Vail Daily)
December 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Marlene Ambrogio, Pfahler’s wife, is also named as a plaintiff and is seeking damages for “nursing, medical and other services rendered to Mr. Pfahler,” the lawsuit says.
Is this for real? I really know of any way to comment on this that would qualify my disbelief.
Posted by: jupiterjim | Dec 21, 2007 6:01:04 AM
I think the whole lawsuit should be tossed simply for the fact that the old man grabbed the 8-year old as he tried to ski away - which is probably how he hurt himself in the first place. It was an accident plain and simple and the boy had the courtesy to apologize. I would ban the "strong recreational skier" from ever skiing there again and give the boy free skiing.
Posted by: JillyBean2024 | Dec 21, 2007 6:08:41 AM
How does one "sue" an 8 year old? What do you take away his birthday?
I have heard that you don't get to be old by being a fool. But it seems that when some get old they become fools.
Posted by: Dick C. Normas | Dec 21, 2007 6:19:48 AM
as a non-doctor, I prescribe a swift kick in the ass to Mr. Pfahler, followed by jack sh*t. Than give Scott some ski passes.
Mr. Pfahler, I hope you're reading this: Ski into a tree!
Posted by: sometimesilie | Dec 21, 2007 6:22:18 AM
I always try to be aware of my surroundings when skiing. That means NO audio players. Want to bet this guy had his iPod plugged in and going full blast?
This one is just made for Overlawyered.com!
Posted by: KDP | Dec 21, 2007 6:28:04 AM
but wait! what "other services rendered to Mr. Pfahler" qualify for money in this suit?...is she a nurse? Did she paint the house because he couldn't? how does one begin to determine which services if any will be considered. Sorry to harp on this but it really annoys me. He'll most likely file suit against the movie "the neverending story" becuase it was only 90 minutes long
Posted by: jupiterjim | Dec 21, 2007 6:34:52 AM
I had a friend who was hit on the slopes by some douchebag going way too fast for their skills. His shoulder was all fucked up, he still has troubles with it. He wishes he sued the asshole who ran into him.
Really, the guy is suing the brat's parents who apparantly were nowhere in sight when this 7-year-old alone on the slopes crashed into an old man. Hmmm...
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Dec 21, 2007 6:52:00 AM
Whoops, sorry the parents claim they not only were there, but that their child was skiing slowly and in control when *somethinghappened* and the two people crashed.
Heh.
75 Grand seems a bit much, the guy should get all medical + lost wages + any assistance needed to get around while he was injured. Given the costs of medical care these days, 75 Grand might be right for Vail Colorado area medical.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Dec 21, 2007 6:56:43 AM
Here's the money quote:
"If the case is settled, Scott and his family won’t have to pay damages because the family has insurance, Robb Swimm said."
In other words, the old fart is trying to score money from their insurance company, probably by exaggerating his medical expenses! And he doesn't give a damn if he screws with a little kid's head to do it.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Dec 21, 2007 7:08:28 AM
I'll act for Farmer Bob again and demand that this 60-year old and his wife be forced to undergo sex-change surgery. Greedy *******.
Posted by: LittleKitty | Dec 21, 2007 7:11:54 AM
I'm sorry, but this sounds like a set up from the beginning. How many people are going to tell someone, especially a kid "I'm going to sue" immediately after the incident happens? Maybe it's just me but the first thing that comes to my mind is "ouch that hurt"... I think he just wants an all expenses paid trip regardless of who is going to pay for it.
Posted by: whyaskwhy | Dec 21, 2007 7:19:09 AM
When you ski you accept this risk. I hope someone kills this old crybaby.
Boo hoo his shoulder hurts a little bit.
Posted by: SwarthyTroll | Dec 21, 2007 7:21:57 AM
An accident is just that. What the old fart did was an assault on an 8 year old kid. Sue his pants off.
Posted by: Jim | Dec 21, 2007 7:24:39 AM
I don't know. If the kid was skiing recklessly (big 'if' here), and (if) his parents were aware of it (and thus are lying), then I think his parents would bear some of the responsibility for the injuries.
I have been hit by a reckless skier, and it sucks. Didn't sue, but I wasn't terribly injured, although my glove was cut open by his ski, and ruined. I was glad my hand wasn't cut open too.
Posted by: Sigh | Dec 21, 2007 7:38:47 AM
The article said he works for Reader's Digest. Is that not a Christian based little magazine. I remember my Grandmother reading those, they have references to scripture in them. Yes!!! I bet he has a "Not Of This World" sticker on his car too!
Posted by: hopeinblack | Dec 21, 2007 7:42:39 AM
they make asshole in the 7 year old variety. that kids parents are responsible for his actions. if you had some little punk bash into you and it ended up costing you $50k + time + pain wouldnt you ask for $75k?
Posted by: buddy | Dec 21, 2007 7:43:51 AM
I see a lot of ageism from the obscure bores this morning.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 7:49:27 AM
Easy solution: Have the old man charged with assault for grabbing the kid.
"Oh...ahhh....lawsuit? Umm... lets just drop that, k?"
Posted by: Keith | Dec 21, 2007 8:07:41 AM
can we PLEASE get an intelligent, clever Troll?
Posted by: sometimesilie | Dec 21, 2007 8:08:44 AM
The obnoxious stupidity of so many of the posters in this thread is appalling. Guess they all hate their grandpas.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 8:12:32 AM
Oh, my perfect little boy would never do anything wrong!!!
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 8:15:48 AM
what a curmudgeny old fart
Posted by: Cherie | Dec 21, 2007 8:18:10 AM
So, if some careless idiot caused you thousands of dollars in medical bills and weeks of pain, you'd just say, hey, no problem?
Gimme a break!!!
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 8:21:20 AM
Ageism? What a crock. It's the guy's lawsuit-happy, lame-ass douchebaggery that I despise, not his age.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Dec 21, 2007 8:24:36 AM
>>Ageism? What a crock
Oh yeah?
" old man "
"you don't get to be old by being a fool"
"old fart"
And the asshole called Phranqlin also calls him lawsuit happy. Where's the evidence of that? Are you saying that anyone who files even one lawsuit is lawsuit happy?
What an idiot you are.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 8:29:41 AM
Which skier was the uphill skier? The kid or the adult? Didn't the story say the uphill skier had the responsibility?
... and this is why i'll never ski...
Posted by: wish i was dancing | Dec 21, 2007 8:32:26 AM
re: intelligent trolls:
There's an old adage that begins "Never try to teach a pig to sing..."
WIWD: The uphill skier is the one in back. The downhill person would be leading the uphill one.
Posted by: Wolf | Dec 21, 2007 8:36:11 AM
reading all this has caused me pain. lets all sue jim for posting this story ;)
j/k JR!
Posted by: buddy | Dec 21, 2007 8:41:27 AM
Sounds like someone didn't save enough for retirement. Fishy that he said he would sue right after the "crash".
Oddly enough, I had a torn ligament once in my foot and it didn't cost $75,000 in medical bills or lost time at work. Was it inconvenient? Yes. Did it happen while playing sports? Yes. D@mn! Someone's insurance could have paid my college tuition!
This guys sounds like an @sshorn and people like him are causing our insurance premiums to skyrocket.
Posted by: Nicole | Dec 21, 2007 8:55:04 AM
Nicole, you heartless bitch. The guy was hurt and at his age, recovering from an injury can be slower and more painful than it is for a younger person. And a rotator cuff repair is no joke. Physical therapy can take months, and there will a lifetime of residual pain.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 9:12:31 AM
a couple of years ago, a friend of mine was skiing with his kids. a novice, out of control snowboarder cut him off. to avoid colision, he skiied off trail, and hit a fencepost. the poor kid spent two months in the hospital with a broken pelvis. don't even think the snowboarder realized what happened.
this situation seems to be hard to tell. it was on a cat trail, so it shouldn't have been too steep. my big question is why is the old guy turning? that's not something that you do very often on a cat trail. also, in those circumstances, the kid can probably ski in control at speeds the old guy would consider reckless. the lines about the old guy threatening to sue on the slope sounds made up to me--i think the dad just made them up to make the old guy sound worse.
i'm guessing the old guy doesn't have insurance, otherwise it would be the insurance co. that would sue the kid. and what does he do at the Digest that he can't because his shoulder was hurt?
Posted by: lester | Dec 21, 2007 9:18:03 AM
Dec, it would not be the guy's insurance company that sued. The injured party would sue regardless of whether or not he had insurance.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 9:23:35 AM
>>and what does he do at the Digest that he can't because his shoulder was hurt?
Obviously you've never had a torn rotator cuff or you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 9:24:47 AM
There's an old adage that begins "Never try to teach a pig to sing..."
---
LOL wolf. Not a sincere wish, just a swipe at the anonymous KIA assbag(s) whose condescending attitude seem to indicate that they are above-it-all, yet whose posts and grammar are dull, bor(e)-ing and un(incite)ful. A pot calling a kettle black, yet too dim to see it's so.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Dec 21, 2007 9:28:37 AM
And a rotator cuff repair is no joke. Physical therapy can take months, and there will a lifetime of residual pain.
---
speaking of that, I had one done when I was uninsured and didn't have the $150 a pop for the recommended 3x a week therapy and I turned out...just fine. But my guess is that anon. is an orthopedist and could prove otherwise, if (s)he wasn't so busy proving how monumentally stupid is anyone who posts on this board.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Dec 21, 2007 9:31:02 AM
Works for RD. Skiing in Vail, has good insurance more than likely. Let the insurance companies figure it out. 25k for pain and suffering? If you want to play, expect to pay! I've had 4 major shoulder surgeries. Suck it up and move on.
Posted by: ol'dog | Dec 21, 2007 9:33:28 AM
>>if (s)he wasn't so busy proving how monumentally stupid is anyone who posts on this board.
Not anyone, but certainly you. Rotator cuff tears come in varying degrees. Obviously yours was a surface tear and was probably corrected with a simple arthroscopic procedure. You're lucky you got by without therapy.
Complete tears that require reattachment to the bone are another ballgame altogether.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 9:35:11 AM
um, actually, i have. didn't keep me from working, though.
Posted by: lester | Dec 21, 2007 9:35:26 AM
BTW, just how can grammar be dull? Perhaps you should consult your dictionary for a definition of that word.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 9:36:35 AM
um, actually, i have. didn't keep me from working, though
Well, wouldn't it depend on the nature of your job?
What offends me as a troll is the superior attitude and obnoxious lack of empathy shown here and in so many of the other threads by so many of the obscure bores. If you wonder why the world is so fucked up, just read the posts here and you'll see why.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 9:45:45 AM
Sticks and stones. Give me a break, anonymous. Maybe I should sue for defamation of character. Hope you have insurance for that.
Posted by: Nicole | Dec 21, 2007 9:54:58 AM
Dr. Anon...you seem to be the only troll in this thread. You also seem to need some therapy for your obvious anger and resentment issues. Must've been a rough childhood.
I welcome your retort...because anyone with 1/2 a sane mind can see that this old man is an asshat for sueing the family of the kid. Sometimes things can be taken care of in a friendly fashion without the need for a court room, lawyers and a judge. What an astronomical waste of everyones time, energy and money.
Thank you...I'll be here all week.
And Dr. Anon...how's your attitude working for you so far.
Enjoy the day...
Dr. Phil.
Posted by: Cherie AKA Dr. Phil | Dec 21, 2007 9:55:10 AM
If you wonder why the world is so fucked up, just read the posts here and you'll see why.
---
yup, on my way home tonight I'm going to stop and pillage a village but only AFTER I rob and old lady and do other things to inconsiderate to print.
Someone who equates message board posters with the "world is so fucked up" must have had a very short marriage to reality.
--
BTW, just how can grammar be dull? Perhaps you should consult your dictionary for a definition of that word.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 9:36:35 AM
Exhibit A.
Consult my dictionary. Wow. Where'd you come up with that zinger, lamewad school? (parody of you, anon.)
Posted by: sometimesilie | Dec 21, 2007 9:56:15 AM
you're stupid!
you're stupid!
Posted by: sometimesilie | Dec 21, 2007 9:57:43 AM
LOL
Posted by: Nicole | Dec 21, 2007 9:58:57 AM
Alright anonymous troll - the article clearly stated that the old geezer considered himself a strong skier - obviously he thinks himself to be in good shape and able to ski on what sounds like a less than hazardous slope. I assume he has insurance that will cover his injuries and any resulting therapy, etc. Suing an 8 year old because of an ACCIDENT in which he ended up assaulting the boy causes me great concern. And your "expertise" regarding this man's injury seems to be based solely on your own ignorant desire to make yourself appear better than everyone else here (at which you fail). Please tell me what inside knowledge you have of this man's injuries, subsequent surgery, treatment and physical therapy. My mother recently fell at work and broke her hip - her first concern was when she would be ready to go back to work, not how much she could sue her employer for - unlike the man in this story who was probably just waiting for something like that to happen so he could sue whoever ran into him.
Posted by: JillyBean2024 | Dec 21, 2007 10:21:13 AM
"Well, wouldn't it depend on the nature of your job?" Well, duh, that's why i asked.
the question that needs to be answered is if the kid was being reckless. i would tend to say no, but then again, i wasn't there. i also know it would be hard for the victim to see that, too--since the kid was uphill and behind him. and as i said, what might appear reckless to the old man may be in control for the kid. i'm an expert on the slopes, and often find myself having to dodge unpredictiple downslope skiiers of all ages. haven't hit one yet, but one of these days i might.
what i would guess happened is that the kid was skiing faster, and ahead of his parents. the victim was going slower, and probably in the middle of the catwalk. it would be unusual for him to make a sharp turn going uphill, but not totally unexpected. if the kid was passing him on the uphill side--which it seems like he was--he was doing the right thing.
ultimately, the kid is at fault because he was the uphill skiier. the victim also probably has a bit to blame for turning uphill, but that's easily arguable. however, skiing is a inherently risky sport, and if the kid wasn't being reckless, then this kind of injury can be occasionally expected. the guy could just have easily torn his cuff if he fell by himself. the other skiier was one of many obsticles that the victim was expected to know about. hence the question of whether the kid was reckless or not.
the mitigaing factor is the catwalk--that's not a slope. it's not unreasonable for the kid to assume the old man was not turning, especially if he hadn't seen him turn. and the definition of reckless is lower on a catwalk.
i would bet that there was a bit of conversation between the dad and the victim before the lawsuit was filed.
Posted by: lester | Dec 21, 2007 10:22:08 AM
Anon,
All four were major surgeries that required alot of rehab, as in completely torn off front and top and the the long head of the biceps being located in a lower spot. And yes each one kept me from working for at least 6 months. Do you have any other questions or comments? And I also believe that you let the insurance companies battle it out. If one company tries to be a jerk, then you go after them and not expose the 7 year old to a bunch of vultures pretending to be responsible lawyers. Responsible lawyer. is that an oximoron??
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 11:21:36 AM
The above post was mine. sorry about the anon part.
Posted by: ol'dog | Dec 21, 2007 11:24:49 AM
It's obvious no one knows the law here. You are responsible if you hurt or injure someone on the ski slope by running into them. The parents let their kid ski like a maniac out of control and this is what happens. Whatever we think of the old man, the kid is responsible and since he is 7 so is his parents. You have to be in control when skiing and if you run into or injure someone you are responsible for their medical bills like it or not. The judge will in no way throw this out. The mom shows her ignorance of physics, objects fall at the same rate of speed regardless of their mass. Gallileo proved this, so he definitly could not be too slow just because he is small. I have seen little kids on the slope younger than this kid and they can go very fast.
Posted by: cheesuschrist | Dec 21, 2007 12:48:05 PM
cheez, i did say the kid was responsible. i think what pisses us all off is the fact that he's suing a kid for 75k. even his wife's suing him.
think about how you would handle this as the victim. i'm insured, so i'd simply submit the claims to my insurance co. they'd pay the bills, and decide when and how to pursue payment from the kid's family. if the kid's folks have homeowner's insurance, i bet my insurance co would work to get some settlement out of that.
if i wasn't insured, then i'd go ahead and sue him for my medical bills. i'd just retain some jagleg attorney who specialized in this kind of crap and let him do his stuff. i'd be annoyed if the attorney went for an over the top style as exhibited by this victim, but don't think i'd stop it from happening.
therefore, if i didn't have insurance, i'd come off as a jerk, but somewhat understandably ... the whole process of handling medical bills would be as painful as the injury itself. if i did have insurance, then i would have to go out of my way to sue, which would make me a grade a asshole.
in what we know about the victim, it appears likely that he does have insurance. therefore, he's most likely a grade a asshole.
the one thing that bothers me is the claim that the victim said he'd sue right away. that seems pretty unlikely to me, and makes me not trust the kid's dad as a witness at all.
Posted by: lester | Dec 21, 2007 1:16:52 PM
This would be an amusing anecdote in "Life in these United States."
This happens often. Whomever was the uphill skier is the one that is liable for the people on their downhill, regrdless of age. But to file suit on a 7 year old is just ridiculous. Pfahler is just looking for money from some rich Vail locals...
Posted by: yucca | Dec 21, 2007 1:34:41 PM
BS.
If you want to be safe don't take up a sport where you might get hurt. Skiing can result in injury? Shocking!!
Posted by: Another Jon. | Dec 21, 2007 1:52:23 PM
The ignorance here is mind-boggling. I'm guessing most of the asshat posters here need help booting their computers.
The old guy sued cause that's an accident victim's only recourse. Saying he shouldn't ski if he's not willing to risk being hurt is like saying you shouldn't drive or leave your house, or take a shower if you aren't willing to risk being injured.
The anon you took you to task is one of the few here with common sense. The old man sued cause that's what you do when you're an accident victim. It's the way your recoup your costs.
I was hit head on by a driver who came across the center line. Was it my fault for driving? How was I to recover the more than $100K it cost me in medical expenses alone. I sued. And for the armchair lawyers who think the insurers should battle it out, well, it doesn't work that way. The injured party sues and may end up suing their own insurer as well as the party at fault.
I hope all of you arrogant cocky assholes who think the old man is a jerk all suffer serious injuries in an accident very soon and so you can learn the hard way what it's like and what your options are.
Posted by: beentheredonethat | Dec 21, 2007 4:23:24 PM
wow some sue happy idiots on here.
Posted by: redwagon | Dec 21, 2007 4:57:03 PM
Wow, some brain dead redwagons here.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 5:08:18 PM
Cherie, you're complete airhead. You prove it here every day.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 5:10:51 PM
Anon and Been there..... Bah Humbug!!! What color is the sky in your little worlds??? Any AssHat that would put a kid through what should be handled by adults and lawyers should be shot for wasting 02! I've had a lawyer come after my 13 year old for what they thought she might know. They "thought" she was an adult. I'm not sure what worked better, chasing them off my property with a base ball bat or hiring a lawyer to tell them they were idiots! I know which one gave more me satisfaction! Children should not be harrased by the scum of the earth. It's like posting anon. No Balls no Glory. And that term is not ment to be gender specific. Hoping that "some arrogant ass" gets hurt is the sign of another "Mature waste of 02!
Posted by: ol'dog | Dec 21, 2007 6:29:08 PM
GFY, ol'dog. Hope you suffer a serious and painful accident at the hand of some child. Then we'll see how noble you are. Kids shouldn't be exempt from the consequences of their misbehavior.
Posted by: | Dec 21, 2007 6:36:06 PM
Kudos to the old guy for having the courage to sue the little bastard and his parents.
Posted by: commonsense | Dec 21, 2007 6:51:22 PM
"Hope you suffer a serious and painful accident at the hand of some child. Then we'll see how noble you are. Kids shouldn't be exempt from the consequences of their misbehavior." "Posted by Anon"
Please read my last post again.
You have proved my point! Wishing someone harm?!?!The child is "7" years old. They are not old enough to put action with result yet! Their brain has not developed enough yet and they have no life experiences to base judgement on yet.
If the "child" was 15, 16 or 17 I would say look at them for their actions, but 7????
And yes, I have suffered serious accidents and lost loved ones. And I believe that most people on this blog have. Through I have learned that the "little ones" need to be educated and cared for, not thrown to the wolves in hope of making a "Buck"!
Posted by: ol'dog | Dec 21, 2007 6:59:42 PM
The guy's trying to recover the costs of an injury caused by another. Don't be such an asshole ol' dog.
Posted by: FuckYou | Dec 21, 2007 7:03:20 PM
As a parent, and as a student of child development, I can state with some certainty that a 7-year-old is not a good judge of what is and is not "reckless behavior." Kids just do stuff until it isn't fun anymore. If there are consequences, they weren't thinking that far ahead; that's why they always have that "Oh Shit!" look when reality sets in, and then usually try to lie their way out of whatever it was they did.
All kids are like this, even the so-called "good ones."
But here's the deal: my kid got hurt on the playground at school. A kid pushed her off the equipment and she dropped 6 feet to the ground, breaking her foot. The kid was not mentioned in the accident report. We have insurance, and they took care of the medical stuff. We had to give a detailed account of how it happened, but since the school's version didn't mention the kid, so it was the school our insurance co went after to recoup their "loss." Not us, our insurance co. We didn't ask them to. We didn't see a penny of any money they might have received; we didn't even get a report on it.
If this guy used his private medical insurance to pay for his medical costs, it's quite possible that the insurance co filed a lawsuit "on his behalf," with or without his consent, suing the boy because he caused the accident and knowing full well that it will automatically default to his parents, whose insurance may be forced to reimburse the old guy's insurance.
What the team in the old guy's corner didn't count on was the sympathy factor weighing in favor of the kid, despite the general stereotype regarding the types of couples that can afford ski vacations and how they raise their kids.
Posted by: Soo | Dec 21, 2007 8:35:48 PM
Thank you, Soo, for bringing rationality into a thread full of knee-jerk reactions.
Posted by: M | Dec 21, 2007 11:28:10 PM
The guy is perfectly within his rights to sue the boy and his parents. The kid's reckless behavior caused him bodily harm and the parents are ultimately responsible for failing to provide adequate supervision.
Posted by: fb | Dec 22, 2007 7:50:29 AM
The boy's parents sound like a couple of typical rich Republican pigs who think their kid is better than everyone else. The little brat needs a spanking and so do his parents.
Posted by: Hank | Dec 22, 2007 9:10:55 AM
Oooooh! A spanking! A spanking! And after that....
;)
Posted by: Soo | Dec 22, 2007 12:52:51 PM
"Pfahler, 60, of Allentown, Penn., tore a tendon in his shoulder in the collision and is suing for physical therapy expenses, vacation time and other expenses, according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado."
He was injured... are you saying he should have to pay the medical bills cause someone else HURT him..
Who do you belive ... a 8 year old child or a grown man...
The kid was likely goofing off rammed into him and now saying what ever lies he can to stay out of trouble like any kid would.
Posted by: CryWolf | Dec 22, 2007 6:46:27 PM
Thanks Soo for a little Monty to lighten it up a bit in here.
Posted by: stormbringer | Dec 24, 2007 1:07:46 AM
Slyly humorous reporting of this story here. Particularly liked the last line:
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_7796412
Posted by: Hank | Dec 24, 2007 10:03:47 AM
Ok, we have a "he said, she said".
Let's look at the facts.
The lawsuit states the kid was speeding and skiing recklessly. The plaintiff also states he had his back to the defendant. So... how did he know? Does he have eyes in the back of his head?
The kid was 7, and weighed 48 lbs. The plaintiff has an acknowledged chronic injury in that area, so we can't be sure that there was any injury in the first place.
There is an allegation of assault against the defendant, but without corroborating evidence from someone other than the plaintiff's father, this cannot be given much weight. Except that 30 minutes later, the plaintiff and the defendant's father were still arguing about it, which means that the plaintiff's injury cannot have been too bad. It is uncontested that the defendant's father was closely following him on the catwalk, so there is no question of "lack of supervision".
Finally there is the blatant padding of the expense by the plaintiff's wife's "nursing services". This could not have happened had this been some faceless insurance company suing another faceless insurance company. It requires co-operation and even initiation by the plaintiff.
On the evidence that exists, I wouldn't trust the plaintiff as far as I could throw him one-handed uphill, whether he was wearing skis or not. He is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of child abuse, but on the balance of probabilities, I could be persuaded that he is liable there in a civil action. I'd need to know more to jusge that. This lawsuit may even be a pre-emptive strike to forestall the possibility.
I reserve the right to completely revise my opinion should more facts come to light, but this is what I'd say on the facts as they have been reported.
Posted by: Zoe Brain | Dec 27, 2007 11:58:00 PM
