Staff | New York Jury Verdict Reporter, Vol.XVIII, Issue 21

Court of Claims of New York

DEVORA TILSON, AS G.A.L. OF JACK TILSON V. STATE OF NEW YORK

No. 96213

DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: March 24, 2000

TOPIC: SKI ACCIDENTS TUBING ACCIDENT - HILL DESIGN BRAIN DAMAGE AND BLINDNESS IN ONE EYE

SUMMARY:

AWARD: $8,000,000

RESULT: Settlement

Facts Clmts. settled for a total of $8,000,000 in this case ($5,000,000 for Jack T. and $3,000,000 for Devora T.), which arose out of an accident that occurred on 2/9/97 when Clmt

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff: Jay L. Feigenbaum; Finz and Finz; Jericho, NY

STATE: New York

INJURIES: Depressed skull fracture with cranio-cerebral trauma, resulting in severe brain damage with cognitive impairments, trauma-induced dementia, and memory loss; blindness in one eye; fractured facial bones. Clmt. underwent multiple surgeries and has developed seizures. Clmt. contended that he requires constant care and is no longer employable.

SUMMARY:

FACTS:

Clmts. settled for a total of $8,000,000 in this case ($5,000,000 for Jack T. and $3,000,000 for Devora T.), which arose out of an accident that occurred on 2/9/97 when Clmt. Jack Tilson, a 52-year-old real estate developer and builder, was injured while using a snow tube at Belleayre Mountain Ski Center. In a prior decision on 10/15/98, the court granted Clmts.' motion for summary judgment on liability, finding that the slope of the hill on which Clmt. was tubing was negligently designed and constructed for the planned activity, in that the snow tube trail did not have a straight, level area where the tubes and their riders could slow down and come to a complete stop. The court found that the hill was designed with a 90? turn at the bottom, and the berm at the bottom of the hill was inadequate to prevent the tubes from leaving the course. As Clmt. descended the hill in his snow tube, he vaulted over the berm and left the course, continuing down the embankment where he crashed into a tree. Facts Deft. had argued that Clmt. assumed the risk of the sport. The court rejected this defense based upon the fact that the risk of leaving the trail was not readily apparent and was not a foreseeable risk of the activity.