# Old guy sues 7 year old for ski accident



## WhiteLightning

Vail Colorado-Todays information & news from Vail Daily - News


----------



## cemartin

I definitely agree


----------



## dasunluva

I would say it's all in the guy's name. Mr. Pfahler = Mr. Faller!

Guilty you dumbass and Allentown sucks salty nuts. I would be pissed if I lived there as well. Can't everyone just get along?! 

Don't sue me Mr. Faller for calling you Mr. Faller...Mr. Faller, or I'll sue you for being an idiot.


----------



## Datju

*WTF???*

While he's at it might I suggest that Mr. Phaler have Mrs. Phaler sign up for water aerobics, and sue the kids playing in the deep end for traumatizing her by causing slight splashing motions. The splashing motions, which momentarily would paralize her as they resembled the motion of "jerking off", caused her to think of her now infamous husband. While distracted by these thoughts of said jerk off, she slipped while climbing the stairs out of the pool and tweaked her pinkie toe causing trauma and distress to warrant such charges.

WTF you ask? My thoughts as well.

Nice article WL. Too bad those editors in the VV are too much of the sensitive type and wouldn't want to cause a stir for fear of potential economic backlash.


----------



## heliodorus04

At the risk of exposing my actual stupidity...

What's a "cat walk" in relation to a ski resort. I don't think I've ever seen one (I've only been to Key, Copper, and Breck).


----------



## kayakfreakus

Cat walks are normally service roads on the mountain in the summer. They are used to connect runs/peaks/different sections of the mountain. They are normally almost completely flat surface areas that traverse the terrain instead of being vertical and going down it.

Thats my best explanation.


----------



## heliodorus04

Okay, I've been on them, then. The kind of places that kill me as a crappy snowboarder, right?

Thanks.

Suing an 8-year old? WTF?


----------



## fred norquist

this is going to seem like ranting but.....

Its those godamn aletist rich, old bastards who think they are better than everybody else that cause so many problems in the world. Someone needs to tell that ass hole to go back to wherever he is from and stay there.

on a lighter note, im glad that our communities have down to earth people in them to tell these assholes that shit like that isnt accpetable in co


----------



## WhiteLightning

You are right. This guy is making skiers in general, Colorado, and Eagle County look stupid. The truth is, if this somehow ends up in an Eagle County court, me and all of my neighbors will be on the jury, and we won't let this jerk off lightly for what he is trying to do.

From today's Vail Daily via AP via Rocky Mountain News or something to that effect:

Couple that sued Eagle-Vail boy hears complaints

var storytitle = "Couple that sued Eagle-Vail boy hears complaints";








Associated Press
Vail, CO Colorado
December 26, 2007















Comments














Print







Email









People upset over a man who sued an 8-year-old boy and his father over a ski collision have subjected him and his wife to "an electronic tar and feathering," their lawyer said.

David Pfahler and Marlene Ambrogio left their Allentown, Pa., home for the holidays because angry people tied up their phone lines with repeated, automated calls since news reports of the lawsuit, attorney Jim Chalat said Monday.

Some sent angry e-mails and calls to Chalat's Denver law firm, while others called Reader's Digest, where Pfahler works, and demanded he be fired, the Rocky Mountain News reported.

The couple sued Scott Swimm of Vail and his father, Robb Swimm, in federal court in September. They said Scott, then 7, skied into Pfahler, 60, at Beaver Creek in January.

After the crash, Pfahler underwent surgery for a torn rotator cuff and a procedure to repair part of his clavicle, according to the lawsuit.

Chalat said the Colorado Ski Safety Act holds children just as responsible for their actions as adults.

Robb Swim contends his son "tapped" Pfahler's ski boots and that it was not a violent crash.

Chalat said that after the crash, Pfahler asked the Swimm family to help pay his $35,000 of medical bills but never heard back. The lawsuit seeks compensation for physical therapy, vacation time, nursing and medical services provided by Pfahler's wife, and other expenses.

The Swimms did not immediately return a phone message Tuesday to respond to Chalat's comments.
—

Information from:
Rocky Mountain News, http://www.rockymountainnews.com/


----------



## yetigonecrazy

my favorite part about this whole thing is the kids mom's words, which pretty much sum up the whole mess: "my son weighs 48 lbs, he couldnt have been going more than 10 mph".

as a grown man, even if I was some namby pamby old fart from back east, its gonna take a lot more than 48 lbs to take me down. 

bottom line: skiing is an inherently risky sport, the minute you click in to those bindings, you're accepting that risk, and that includes things such as watching for little kids. if you are too dumb to realize that, or too thick headed to do something like this, then you should be "electronically tarred and feathered", and beaten for good measure, and then never be allowed to ski again. who sues an 8 year old? lets hope this guy doesnt come back to CO; he has no friends here


----------



## jaffy

Although it does sound like this guy is one of the get-something-for-nothing crowd, I don't see why everyone is making a big deal about the kid being 8. If you're at fault, it shouldn't matter what age you are (except that then it becomes you parent's responsibility).

If the kid had been barreling down the hill and totally took out some old guy, I absolutely would hold the kid at fault.


----------



## jbarnow

Don't sue me bro


Why should the age of the kid be a factor? Because he is in the single digits and hasn't had enough development time to know that of the 60 year trying to sue him for his zero dollar bank account. How can you ask such an asinine question? Why can't 8 year olds drink? Why are they forced by the government to go to school? Why do they live by a different set of rules than those 18 and over? Seriously dude when you were 8 did you ever make a mistake and an adult taught you the right way to do things?

Skiing is dangerours. Ski at your own risk. Ski within your ability.


----------



## jaffy

Hence it being the parent's responsibility. Duh. Or are you one of those shitty parent's that wants everyone else to take responsibility for your kid?


----------



## Seadog

jbarnow said:


> Skiing is dangerours. Ski at your own risk. Ski within your ability.


hmmm, i'm not defending the money-grubbing lawyer but sounds like the old man wasn't doing anything _dangerous _and was skiing _within his ability_, and as for the "at your own risk" part...are you telling me that if you had $35k worth of doctor's bills due to someone running into you that you wouldn't sue? Even if that was some cute lil' 8 year old? It's not like the old geezer skied off a cliff and then sued the ski resort for the cliff appearing. 

I got slammed into a couple years back from behind (I was skiing about 4 miles/hour approaching a lift) by a beginning skiier and rec'd a concussion... no, I didn't call a lawyer but if I had been seriously F'd up, I don't think I would just grin and bear it.

What i wonder is...wasn't the geezer insured? Seems like a 60 year old is lacking common sense skiing w/out insurance. Strong wind blows and there's another broken hip.


----------



## millerS

sounds like they were skiing at Beaver Creek....I think the old fart has some money to burn! But I guess that is why he is rich, becuase he is a cheap bastard who will even go as far to sue a little boy to get dough.


----------



## WhiteLightning

He wasn't skiing within his ability level if a 7 year old could F him up $75k worth of damage on a flat cat track.


----------



## jbarnow

1st and foremost I don't have children so it would be tough for me to be a shitty parent. Secondly I don't think that this has anything to do with parenting. This seems to me an accident. Did the 8 year old have mallicious intentions to "take out the 60 year old"?

I guess what it boils down to in my opinion is that we protect children because they are incapable of protecting themselves i.e. the term parenting and the nature of animals raising their young until they are ready to go out on their own. Is it your opinion that an 8 year old is ready to leave the nest and provide for themself? Should an 8 year old be concerned as to the safety and well being of a mature 60 year old?

With that said the 60 year old should have taken action to prevent the event. Most likely being twice the size and having 6-7 times the life experience to avoid the situation he should have been able to protect himself.


----------



## caspermike

money money money. some greedy fuckers out there for sure.

he needs 75,000 to get up off the ground wow i though it use to be easy guess not for this guy since he needs to be paid to wipe his own ass. what a piece of shit. if i was the 8 year old i would push him right back down for another 75,000 fatass rich skier sounds like a texan lard ass if he was stopped on the cat walk or moving really slow he could've moved out of the way of the others giving the right away. selfish bastard this is the shit that pisses me off to when newbies are stopped right in the middle it like move to the fucking side and get out of the way.


----------



## ihateboulder

caspermike said:


> what a piece of shit. if i was the 8 year old i would push him right back down for another 75,000 fatass rich skier sounds like a texan lard ass


You certainly write like an 8 year old.


----------



## caspermike

ihateboulder said:


> You certainly write like an 8 year old.


ok how about you kiss my ass, cause you don't have balls to write. its an internet forum if you spell check yourself on this shit you might as well boot yourself in the balls. back off boulder and write something worth reading idiot. 

you're the kid that sits back and tells everybody how to blunt when you can't even roll. so shut the fuck up.


----------



## ihateboulder

caspermike said:


> ok how about you kiss my ass, cause you don't have balls to write. its an internet forum if you spell check yourself on this shit you might as well boot yourself in the balls. back off boulder and write something worth reading idiot.
> 
> you're the kid that sits back and tells everybody how to blunt when you can't even roll. so shut the fuck up.


Casparmike, your a special person. This is the thanks I get for helping you learn how to back surf last summer? I don't know what all the attitude is about, maybe your pissed you don't live in Colorado, the skiing has been great so far! 
i'll work on learning how to write properwy in these forums, fuck, shit, balls. my name is mike, i am iwiterate, why am i such a toowl, hitting the shift key is too difficalt
Are you sure you weren't the 8 year old that ran into that old guy?


----------



## CGM

caspermike said:


> its an internet forum if you spell check yourself on this shit you might as well boot yourself in the balls.


Point 1: That's right, it is an internet forum. It is a place to exchange ideas, get information, state opinons, argue, etc. Or in your case deliver rambling, incoherent, nasty tirades. But if you want to be heard, you should be able to write at least a patially coherent sentance. That means peppering your rants with a few periods and commas so that people can understand your point. Otherwise, people will constantly call you out for your elementary grasp of the english language, and for generally being an idiot. 

Point 2: While extremely hard to understand, I was able to gather from the jibberish that you think this guy is a total asshole. And while I hate to admit it, for once I do actually agree with your take on this situation. That guy should go kick himself in the balls.


----------



## kakahead

Rot in Hell...SCUM!!!!


----------



## WhiteLightning

So this was in the paper today. Richard did a good job writing this, but I don't get how my blog was censored, but Richard was able to write about it. Anyways, I find it most interesting that he says the plaintiff has other skiing related lawsuits that he has previously filed for skiing mishaps.

Here's the link: Vail Colorado-Todays information & news from Vail Daily - Commentary


----------



## heliodorus04

That was simply a fantastic op-ed.
Great analyses, great use of humor that was consistent throughout.
Rational. Concise.
Man, that's one good writer.


----------



## jaffy

jbarnow said:


> 1st and foremost I don't have children so it would be tough for me to be a shitty parent. Secondly I don't think that this has anything to do with parenting. This seems to me an accident. Did the 8 year old have mallicious intentions to "take out the 60 year old"?
> 
> I guess what it boils down to in my opinion is that we protect children because they are incapable of protecting themselves i.e. the term parenting and the nature of animals raising their young until they are ready to go out on their own. Is it your opinion that an 8 year old is ready to leave the nest and provide for themself? Should an 8 year old be concerned as to the safety and well being of a mature 60 year old?
> 
> With that said the 60 year old should have taken action to prevent the event. Most likely being twice the size and having 6-7 times the life experience to avoid the situation he should have been able to protect himself.


I guess you missed the part where I said THIS guy sounds like a money grubbing tool, but in a hypothetical case where it WAS the 8 year old's fault I absolutely would sue. I guess you also missed the part where I said it would be the parent's responsibility, even though I said it twice in what, 5 or 6 sentences?

So to extend your rationale, if an 8 year old got into a car and ran over a senior citizen, the senior citizen should have moved to prevent the accident?


----------



## jbarnow

I think that there is a vast difference between a kid running into someone on the slope and a kid driving a car. Kids are allowed to ski not drive. 

So you are effectually saying that you are no different than the money grubbing tool?


----------



## caspermike

the kid couldn't have been moving fast enough to cause 75,000 in damage. do you know any 8 year olds that really are out of control? that age would be more like 12-14. if anybody sees this dude i hope they give him karma, from the fist to the face!


----------



## WhiteLightning

So I'm still kind of pissed that the Daily didn't run my blog entry about the case. The editor said that it was too sensitive a topic, etc. Anyways, here is my response, we'll see if they run it.


*Don’t Read This Blog! Vail Daily Censoring Blog Entries*

​​
*blog(n.)* Short for _We*b log*_, a blog is a Web page that serves as a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author. (Webopedia.com)

I’ve been censored by the _Vail Daily_.

Yes, that’s right. I’m coming right out and saying it. Censored. Even the word itself seems like an obscenity to a journalist or a newspaper publisher. Maybe it is even too controversial a topic to make it to press (or to the e-equivalent). Playing the censorship card feels like a cliché. First amendment, freedom of speech blah blah blah. 

Most of us played the ‘ol freedom of speech card as soon as we learned about the Bill of Rights in elementary school. I believe I used it when defending myself after talking back to my parents as a new know-it-all 5th grader. “But Mom! Telling him he’s a butt-face is my legal right! It’s the FIRST amendment, look it up! It’s the one about freedom of speech!”

While my days of dramatically claiming censorship every time my parents told me to shut up are over, I must admit that I was taken aback when I submitted a blog entry, and got a response from the managing editor, Alex Miller, that it would not be allowed to run. The blog entry was regarding a cover story from the _Vail Daily_ entitled “Boy, 8, sued in Beaver Creek ski collision”. (Click here for that story)

I felt strongly about this article. It sparked something in me that inspired me to create a blog entry voicing my opinion about the story. I sat down and whipped up my thoughts on what I had just read. The title was “Pick on Someone Your Own Size”. I will admit that my writing wasn’t that good, the piece was cynical, and my response was pretty inflammatory towards one of the people in the story. My understanding is that as (volunteer) bloggers, we were meant to write about our views on local issues, and be sort of an online voice for the local community. For me, it was a good way to practice my writing skills, and test the waters of a new hobby. By definition, a blog is a type of journal, a communication to the rest of the world, whether anyone is listening or not. The format of blogs can vary widely, and basically it fall somewhere between rambling in a journal and op-ed journalism. That’s why I was surprised when I got this back after submitting my piece:

Thanks for your blog entry but given the litigious nature of the party in question and some of the colorful assertions you've put in here, I'm going to pass. If you'd like to take another stab at it and talk about these kinds of suits in general -- and not focus your attack solely on this one guy -- I'd have another look.
Thanks
--
Alex Miller
Managing Editor
Vail Daily | Vail Trail

I won’t bore you with the details, but I responded back and forth, and basically the gist of the conversation was: yes, blogs are screened for content, and my topic and stance was too controversial and risky to be associated with the paper. No, you can’t write about what you think about the specific case, try writing about these types of cases in general. 

*What?! *

Since when did newspapers shy away from writing commentaries on legal cases? What about all that stuff about O.J. and Michael Jackson? Surely I wasn’t the first person to write something opinionated about someone involved in a law suit. Was I?

Maybe I was. After a while, I decided to let it go, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth. I didn’t want to write about ridiculous lawsuits in general. I wanted to write about the one in the paper. I could have lived with just about any other reason for not posting it. I figured “you write at a 7th grade level” would suffice just fine.

While the original cover story inspired me to write “Pick on Someone Your Own Size”, Richard Carnes’s editorial, “Sue no longer means Mom” (Read it here) inspired me to write this. Richard’s piece was outstanding and hit the nail on the head for what seemed like most of the readers I spoke to. It was a total grand slam in my opinion (hopefully my opinion isn’t the “wrong” one). I even read the entire thing, despite my tendency to get bored or lost by the second paragraph of editorial pieces.

What inspired me wasn’t that it was such a well written piece (it was) but the content. Richard’s take on the case was exactly the same as mine, only expressed more convincingly (he even mentions picking on someone your own size). The question is, why was Richard’s hard-line take on the story acceptable, but for my blog, the topic was too controversial? What were the real reasons behind my blog being cut? At first I thought the Daily was just being chicken, but now it smells more like something fishy.

The _Daily_ even did an “Our View” editorial by Tamara Miller (here) with more opinions regarding this story. 

I imagine if blogs are being screened for controversial content, this entry I give you today may never make it past my outbox. I hope I am wrong. Newspapers and magazines love to print editorial content from someone complaining about some aspect of their publication. It makes them appear to be more credible and balanced by showing that they are willing to accept both sides of the story—the good with the bad.


----------



## ocutah

WhiteLightning said:


> Ok, so I do a little blog on the Vail Daily's web site. I tried to write a blog entry about an article where a 7 year old bumped a 60 year old guy on a cat walk. Said old guy stumpled, and fell over when the little guy tried to pass him on the cat walk. The guy's attorney says he is a good skiier.
> 
> Anyways, the editor at the Daily didn't have the balls to run my blog. I thought I went pretty light, no four letter words, etc. Anyways, I need to publish it somewhere, so I'll start here since someone might actually read it.


I know you said your editor wouldn't run your blog because it was too controversial...but did you ever think that they didn't want to run it because it was so poorly written? Maybe he/she was just trying not to hurt your feelings. Just a thought.


----------



## WhiteLightning

ocutah said:


> I know you said your editor wouldn't run your blog because it was too controversial...but did you ever think that they didn't want to run it because it was so poorly written? Maybe he/she was just trying not to hurt your feelings. Just a thought.


Yes, maybe so.


----------



## ocutah

WhiteLightning said:


> Yes, maybe so.


I kid, I kid.


----------



## scottw

WhiteLightning said:


> I’ve been censored by the _Vail Daily_.
> 
> Yes, that’s right. I’m coming right out and saying it. Censored. Even the word itself seems like an obscenity to a journalist or a newspaper publisher. Maybe it is even too controversial a topic to make it to press (or to the e-equivalent). Playing the censorship card feels like a cliché. First amendment, freedom of speech blah blah blah.


You haven't been censored, you've been edited. The _Vail Daily_ is has the right to publish or not publish whatever they like in their paper, their website or wherever. This is not a first amendment issue. It's simply an editorial decision. You may not like it, but you have no constitutional right to have them publish your writing.


----------



## jaffy

jbarnow said:


> I think that there is a vast difference between a kid running into someone on the slope and a kid driving a car. Kids are allowed to ski not drive.
> 
> So you are effectually saying that you are no different than the money grubbing tool?


Apparently in your eyes you can see no difference. Way to stick to your own point of view without any ability to consider another. I'll give it one more try though, with an example that should require zero imagination on your part (I'll do that for you).

1. Kid is cruising down a blue groomer.
2. Old man is stopped at the top of a riser, looking downhill.
3. Kid runs into old man.
4. Old man gets knocked down and breaks his hip

Are you saying that the parents of the kid should not pay? Or do you think since the old man is larger and has more life experience, he should have been able to avoid that?


----------



## Unordinary

I do not see any information pertaining to whether "Mr. Faller" was seen by the Ski Patrol or not. Seems to me Scott has a great chance at a summary dissmisal if the injuries did not require attention at the incident site. Also if there was no incident report and no witnesses other than those involved??? However the incident does point out the need to be aware of the consequences of collisions at Colorado Ski Areas. The Skier Safety Act puts responsibilities on both the Ski Area and the Skiers.


----------



## Seadog

They should just let the old man break the little kid's hip and call it even.


----------

