Re: Coroner's verdict homicide in downhill skiing collision

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Wed, 08 May 2024 15:32:29 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

At Jackson Hole, a downhill skier collided with a ski instructor. The
ski instructor was wearing a helmut. He would die.

The death was ruled a homicide. This is quite unusual. In skiing, the
burden is on the skier who is uphill to avoid the collision with the
person below. The coroner must have felt there was time and distance to
maneuver around and that failure to do so was criminally reckless.

Wouldn't that depend on the skill level of the skier?

That was my thought. As someone that has never skied before I could
easily see my running into someone unintentionally.

What does intent have to do with a coroner's finding? The coroner
doesn't make a finding based on proving intent.

(Yes, you can always fall down to stop yourself but I can easily see
someone not think of that when in a panic.)

How does that change whether the downhill skier was responsible for his
own failure to avoid the collision? The coroner's finding of homicide is
due to his conclusion that the collision was avoidable. The possibility
that the downhill skier panicked doesn't excuse his reckless behavior.

Now if the skier was experienced then I could some fault being applied
to them if they run into someone.

That might be evidence of intent, actually, but it's still irrelevant to
the coroner's finding.