1 2
914Driver
914Driver SuperDork
3/8/12 8:18 a.m.

I don't know where these lawyer jokes come from ....

The time: The morning of the day after Thanksgiving.

The place: The Gore Mountain ski resort in North Creek.

The scenario: A 17-year-old snowboarder slides down the mountain. He misjudges the path of a skier beneath him. The snowboarder and skier collide.

And who did Andrew Nicoll, the snowboarder, hit that day? Saratoga Springs City Court Judge Jeffrey Wait, a recently declared state Supreme Court candidate for the Fourth Judicial District.

So hundreds of people on a mountain, and Nicoll runs into an experienced member of the legal profession. What luck!

The accident made Wait very unhappy, to put it mildly. The 52-year-old judge says he lost his cool, angrily confronting Nicoll and demanding that the resort's ski patrol reprimand the teenager and initiate an accident report.

"The kid learned a whole new vocabulary," Wait says now. "I was so freakin' angry."

Nicoll remembers being intimidated by Wait that morning.

The accident was pretty much out of the teen's mind until about a month later, when his father received a letter from Ginley & Gottman, a Saratoga Springs law firm, telling him that Wait had been "seriously injured" by the collision.

The firm also advised Donald Nicoll that he should notify his homeowners insurance company. Wait, it turns out, intended to file an injury claim.

That surprised the Clifton Park family, because the judge hadn't seemed hurt that morning. The Nicolls were also shocked that Wait would file a claim on such an unintentional incident.

"I wasn't doing anything stupid," Andrew Nicoll said. "I was riding straight, and he ended up turning right and I hit him."

Donald Nicoll, a 49-year-old product engineer, contacted the Times Union because he believes the insurance claim offers voters insight into the mind-set of an elected official seeking higher office. He's right, whether or not you agree with the judge's decision, The topic, I think, also sheds light on liability issues involved with hitting the slopes.

I don't think most people give those issues much thought. I never did when, as a new snowboarder, I careened down mountains with less control than a blind-folded truck driver. And I didn't have the personal-liability protection that's typically included with renters or homeowners insurance.

Wait, however, doesn't find the topic particularly noteworthy. To him, his insurance claim was a rather routine move on a personal health issue and thus unworthy of news coverage.

The judge, a Democrat, remains upset about the collision, believing it resulted from irresponsible behavior. He's also angered that Nicoll would question the insurance claim or mention it to a newspaper.

But Wait, an accomplished skier who learned the sport when he was 7, insists he wasn't thinking about a lawsuit or insurance when he asked the ski patrol to track down the younger Nicoll, thus securing the address he would need to file the claim.

"I wanted the ski patrol to ram it into the kid's head that it's never OK to run into someone," he said. "If you run into somebody, that means you're not in control."

Wait didn't know he was hurt until he felt pain later in the day. A trip to the emergency room, he says, showed a broken scapula and a torn rotator cuff. The judge said he's still in pain.

Wait's injuries are covered by health insurance, of course, but the judge, who says he hasn't been skiing since, believes he's due additional compensation.

Thus, the insurance claim.

"Some kid has ruined my winter, and I don't know if I'm ever going to be 100 percent," said Wait, who has personal-injury law experience in the private sector. "I'm entitled to be compensated for that. That's how our system works."

True enough. But we don't have to like our system.

Wait, the son and great-great grandson of Saratoga County district attorneys, said it's unlikely he'd have sought compensation if Don Nicoll wasn't an insured homeowner. He noted the insurance payout -— if it eventually comes -— won't be borne by the wallet of the Nicolls family.

But insurance payouts do, of course, raise the cost of coverage for everybody else. In fact, our lawsuit- and damages-happy society is making nearly everything more expensive — including the ever-rising cost of medical care and prescription drugs.

Nicoll didn't hit Wait intentionally. Can't an accident just be an accident, no lawyers necessary?

Actually, the Nicoll's insurance company might just have had legal justification to reject the claim. (Wait said the company has responded to his claim and has an adjuster working on it.)

Under New York law, ski mountains are considered inherently dangerous places and skiers assume risk just by getting on the mountain, said Michael Macomber, an attorney with Tully Rinckey in Colonie. And that includes risks associated with the behavior of other skiers.

Prior court decisions have found that for a skier to win damages, Macomber said, he must show he was injured by a skier who was either wantonly reckless or intentionally trying to cause hurt.

Nicoll, in my opinion, was neither.

New York state law, however, does advise that a skier who is lower on the mountain always has the right of way. So the Shenendehowa High School senior should pass with much more caution.

He says he's already doing so.

"I've definitely taken more precautions since (the collision) happened," Nicoll said. "If I can't tell what somebody is going to do, I stop and wait."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Saratoga-judge-s-ski-injury-case-chills-teenage-3390297.php#ixzz1oXE4w2tQ

DrBoost
DrBoost SuperDork
3/8/12 8:22 a.m.

What a tool! I'm sure he'll get six-figures though.

mtn
mtn SuperDork
3/8/12 8:33 a.m.

Um... He was skiing... Now, I've never been skiing, but it seems to me that it is one of those high-risk areas where you just have to assume that you could get hurt. Right?

Pathetic.

1988RedT2
1988RedT2 SuperDork
3/8/12 8:34 a.m.

I'm sorry. What stereotype are we perpetuating? The one that says all teenagers are reckless crazy fools that might at any time strap their feet to a slippery board and go flying down any icy mountain with no regard for themselves or anyone else, stopping only after they hit someone, if then?

Poor old man lawyer judge dude probably never saw it coming. Cut down in his prime by an act of savage negligence. sniff.

ThePhranc
ThePhranc HalfDork
3/8/12 8:34 a.m.

Greedy. Tort reform please.

JohnInKansas
JohnInKansas New Reader
3/8/12 8:38 a.m.

E36 M3 happens. Don't like sports injuries? Don't play sports.

N Sperlo
N Sperlo SuperDork
3/8/12 8:39 a.m.

ADHD kicked in. Wake me up when the punchline is coming up.

93EXCivic
93EXCivic SuperDork
3/8/12 8:39 a.m.

What a Bob Costas!

4cylndrfury
4cylndrfury SuperDork
3/8/12 9:12 a.m.
1988RedT2 wrote: I'm sorry. What stereotype are we perpetuating? The one that says all teenagers are reckless crazy fools that might at any time strap their feet to a slippery board and go flying down any icy mountain with no regard for themselves or anyone else, stopping only after they hit someone, if then? Poor old man lawyer judge dude probably never saw it coming. Cut down in his prime by an act of savage negligence. *sniff*.

4cylndrfury
4cylndrfury SuperDork
3/8/12 9:14 a.m.
JohnInKansas wrote: E36 M3 happens. Don't like sports injuries? Don't play sports.

this

/thread

patgizz
patgizz SuperDork
3/8/12 9:22 a.m.

can't afford to wad your car up on track? don't go to track

can't afford to wad yourself up on mountain? don't go to ski

similar concept to that which is constantly preached here.

Greg Voth
Greg Voth HalfDork
3/8/12 9:27 a.m.

I deal with this stuff everyday. Depending on his injuries (the broken bone helps) and medical bills it may get to six figures if the claim is not denied. It looks like from the article that NY labels ski as an assumed risk.

This judge is just on the other side of the bench from the usual claimants seeking money.

RossD
RossD SuperDork
3/8/12 9:35 a.m.
d-bag said: "I'm entitled to be compensated for that. That's how our system works."

Just like the lady who won $1 million lottery and was convinced she still deserved food stamps.

spitfirebill
spitfirebill SuperDork
3/8/12 9:57 a.m.
RossD wrote:
d-bag said: "I'm entitled to be compensated for that. That's how our system works."
Just like the lady who won $1 million lottery and was convinced she still deserved food stamps.

But she didn't have any income!

vwcorvette
vwcorvette HalfDork
3/8/12 10:37 a.m.

Funny, we've had a rash of injures from the ski hills to students here at the school. All of them have been snowboarders RUN-OVER by skiers!

ThePhranc
ThePhranc HalfDork
3/8/12 10:42 a.m.
vwcorvette wrote: Funny, we've had a rash of injures from the ski hills to students here at the school. All of them have been snowboarders RUN-OVER by skiers!

Damn yuppy skiers need to get out of the way of the cool kids.

Seriously though I always thought the two should be segregated. Or at least split slopes into lackadaisical and not so lackadaisical. That way the meandering slow pokes stay out of the way of the extreme! downhillers. Like the left lane = fast lane type deal.

pigeon
pigeon SuperDork
3/8/12 10:51 a.m.

OK, I'll take the bait. Place yourself into the judge's shoes/skis - yes, NY law says you assume the risk of a collision with another skier, but if the other skier is acting recklessly - beyond ordinary negligence - and hits you then that's not a risk you assumed and you're entitled to compensation if you're hurt by that recklessness. There's no facts at all in that opinion piece - it's not a news article, the title of the guy who wrote it is "The Advocate". We don't know if the "innocent" teen was bombing straight down the mountain or if he was simply carving nice, gentle turns and the judge turned into his path. The fact that the ski patrol had to go track him down says something too about his behavior and mindset that day.

Insurance doesn't go up because people make claims, insurance goes up because those who buy insurance do stupid things, and the nature of insurance is to spread the cost of the minority of people doing stupid things over the broad pool of all people who buy insurance. More stupidity leads to higher rates.

Oh, and insurance companies are for-profit entities and do very well. State Farm made $1.7 Billion last year. Geico "only" made $587 million last year, down nearly 50% from the year before. Allstate made just under $1 Billion. And that's after paying for the ubiquitous advertising. Not to mention the several times the large insurers have been caught defrauding their own insureds. Tort reform? Give me a break. How about stronger insurance regulation instead.

Duke
Duke SuperDork
3/8/12 11:27 a.m.
pigeon wrote: Oh, and insurance companies are for-profit entities and do very well. State Farm made $1.7 Billion last year. Geico "only" made $587 million last year, down nearly 50% from the year before. Allstate made just under $1 Billion. And that's after paying for the ubiquitous advertising. Not to mention the several times the large insurers have been caught defrauding their own insureds. Tort reform? Give me a break. How about stronger insurance regulation instead.

Care to post that as ROI or margin percentages, rather than the giant-but meaningless raw dollar amounts that people advocating corporate regulation always seem to favor?

Don49
Don49 Reader
3/8/12 12:01 p.m.

One bit of info that seems to be lacking in the report of the incicident: Did the snowboarder call out a "By your left or By your right" as he overtook the skier? This is more than a coutesy, particularly if you are approaching at a much greater speed. Not saying the Judge is right, but I have observed a great lack of common sense/courtesy/basic safety on the slopes, be it skier or snowboarder.

1988RedT2
1988RedT2 SuperDork
3/8/12 12:03 p.m.
Don49 wrote: One bit of info that seems to be lacking in the report of the incicident: Did the snowboarder call out a "By your left or By your right" as he overtook the skier? This is more than a coutesy, particularly if you are approaching at a much greater speed. Not saying the Judge is right, but I have observed a great lack of common sense/courtesy/basic safety on the slopes, be it skier or snowboarder.

I believe the warning attributed to him was "In your face, old man!"

JohnInKansas
JohnInKansas New Reader
3/8/12 12:13 p.m.

I have a hard time with calling a direction on the slopes. Depending on speed, you've got to call it pretty far in advance, which has problems. I try to call a direction if I'm not moving real fast and am fairly close to overtaking a slower party. The real solution is to ski/board reasonably and within your limits. Weather, snow condition, traffic density, skill level factor in to this. If you can't predict where the snowplower ahead of you is going to be when you get to them in time to react accordingly, you're going to fast or are too close to them.

I would suspect that the kid probably did just that; either didn't see the slower skier, couldn't react in time, or was just not paying attention to his surroundings, all of which point to skiing/boarding beyond his limits.

Doesn't make the lawsuit any less dumb, IMO.

jrw1621
jrw1621 SuperDork
3/8/12 12:22 p.m.

In reply to 1988RedT2:
Well Done. I lol'd

Anti-stance
Anti-stance Reader
3/8/12 12:24 p.m.
ThePhranc wrote: Greedy. Tort reform please.

This should happen for sure. Although in this case, I have a feeling the judge would have some way of working the system. But loser pays would fix alot of the frivolous lawsuits out there.

oldsaw
oldsaw SuperDork
3/8/12 12:26 p.m.
pigeon wrote: OK, I'll take the bait. Place yourself into the judge's shoes/skis - yes, NY law says you assume the risk of a collision with another skier, but if the other skier is acting recklessly - beyond ordinary negligence - and hits you then that's not a risk you assumed and you're entitled to compensation if you're hurt by that recklessness. There's no facts at all in that opinion piece - it's not a news article, the title of the guy who wrote it is "The Advocate".

You should have stopped right there. Everything else is just your speculation.

pigeon wrote: We don't know if the "innocent" teen was bombing straight down the mountain or if he was simply carving nice, gentle turns and the judge turned into his path. The fact that the ski patrol had to go track him down says something too about his behavior and mindset that day.

We know the Judge confronted and verbally accosted the kid. Maybe he left because he felt threatened? I don't know; neither do you.

And Duke asks a good question about understanding the differences between raw numbers and margins.

914Driver
914Driver SuperDork
3/8/12 12:44 p.m.
pigeon wrote: There's no facts at all in that opinion piece - it's not a news article, the title of the guy who wrote it is "The Advocate".

The Advocate is a column in this paper that goes after the unjust (I can't think of another word). Pay to have work done on your house, the guy finishes half and blows town. The Advocate helps find him, stuff like that.

Some of the stories are to bring public opinion on behalf of the wronged. Yes, we have every legal right to build a shopping mall on 3 sides of your property because you didn't sell out to us! Public opinion may help the little guy. I don't know if you can cruise older stories on the site, but if so you would get the idea. Also, click the link, there are 63 comments by readers and it just came out this morning. Some for, some against.

I snowboard and I have a boy, but I wasn't there when this happened.

I think the lawyer may have been honestly hurt by getting clipped, I also think he was wrong to blast the kid.

My opinion isn't what matters here, I think the story was to show how easily one can bang the system for money thus raising costs for everyone.

...but that's just my oninion.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
U4XXN3CSCIZmNPu3Krk3qRNqFlgyU2VEdmVZL9ott6n9yPGGHLR1gHVwyvQEIrZE