Melissa

The crux of the issue is how the witness is categorized... I do not think you have to be an expert to testify as to the conditions of the snow on which you are skiing. An expert under the Federal Rules of Evidence is someone who has specialized knowledge and is thus able to give opinions on subjects that a lay person does not have knowledge of (like the standard of care used in a medical procedure or something). Lay persons are able to give opinions on things that they know about. For example, ski, if you were involved in a car accident, and were asked on direct to please describe the weather that day, you could say "well, the temp was about xx degrees, it was rainy, and visibiltity low." You don't have a degree in meterology, but you are certainly qualified to offer your opinion as to the weather conditions because you were, in fact, driving in the rain that day. Likewise, a skier is qualified to testify as to the conditions of the slope on which s/he was skiing that day. To take it a step further, an expert could be called to offer opinion testimony, such as, would the slope conditions have created a hazard to a person like the plaintiff. I hope this explains my point. Also, in rereading your post, I think I need to address a few things. First, obviously such a witness would only be able to testify as to the conditions of the ski slope (and thus actually witnessing the accident would be immaterial to the veracity of the statement given). Second, hearsay exceptions are not subject to cross-examination, obviously, so that is an issue. However, the hearsay exceptions codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence are considered to be especially truthful, which is why they are admissible despite the inability to cross-examine them. (the only time the inability to cross ex a hearsay statement becomes a problem is when such a statement violates a defendent's constitution right to confront their accuser). Third, I'd like to point out that I do not actually know whether such statements would be admissible under the present sense impression hearsay exception, this is just my best, unresearched guess as to why they collect those statements.

I would imagine it would be unnecessary to subpoena a snow condition witness... Those statements made to the investigator would come in as admissible hearsay as a present sense impression. Because the statements are most likely admissible hearsay, the investigator (patroller, whomever) could testify to the conditions of the snow as reported by the wintesses, thus rendering their actual presence in court unnecessary.

Yay, I am so happy to hear they made snow!! Can't wait to get out there tomorrow after work. Also, in order for Sno to make more money, I am going to commit myself to drinking more at the bar there after skiing. We all have to do our part.

Thanks for the report!!! I'm sitting here in Doylestown wondering what shape the mountain was in. I'll keep my fingers crossed that temps tonight will be cold enough to blow!!

I like beer and I like m&ms, so I don't see why I wouldn't enjoy them together!

hahaha okay, but I only like really good tequila!

I've never tried that, but I have been known to combine skittles and alcoholic beverages on occasion!

True that.

HAHAHA! You are too much. Congrats to Ty as well! Re: Tequila... TROUBLE! Re: Mentos... I prefer the fruit flavors over the minty ones. Recently, Mentos has included cherry flavor in their fruit pack... cherry is less superior to the other flavors in my opinion.

I'll be your skiing buddy! What is our discount in the cafeteria?? Does it work in the bar too? That would be fun!

I don't "practice" right now--I have a government appointment. I've only been at my job since August, so I don't know whether things are slow or busy right now. We have enough work to keep us busy, but it's not super busy or anything. Litigation, in general, is always busy. Right now, though, nationally, structured finance is really, really slow!

Thanks, Ski

Just take 476 North all the way to the exit for 81 N (mile 116ish I think?), and then you get off at exit 182, and you are right there! It's super convienent because it is right off the highway. Elk is at like exit 210 off of 81 (or somewhere around there). Ahh, Ski beat me too this...

Yay, I hope she can get it well enough to do devo... Even grown-ups get smacked with the lift... I totally got smacked on Saturday because I was too busy yapping to my friend to notice the lift was already there (and the liftie didn't catch it, but I don't blame him b/c I wasn't paying attention).

Ah, so jealous you got out there. I had to get a bunch of stuff done tonight, and I've got plans tomorrow and Wednesday night, so I won't be out til Thursday I think:( Glad to hear the conditions were so nice and that you guys had a nice time! How is Ty doing with the lift?

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24905 Is this what you mean?

I don't know why judges legislate from the bench. I think most people mean well, and when they see that a case, following the law, will come out unfair/unjust (according to social/moral standards), they try to fashion a rationale to make the result fair, i.e. legislate from the bench. But then, some judges I think can get a little power hungry, for lack of a better term, and try to change the way our society operates by their legal precedents. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with kind intentions. Ski, I think this really raises the bar for our future lift discussions! (haha, no pun intended!)

Hahaha, I know it's all in good fun, you guys make me laugh with this stuff.

Hey, no one said the law is fair... which is why the courts of equity were created in England and imported to America. Don't worry though, Ski, I agree with you. It's the same idea as suing the doctor for med mal who performs surgery without which the patient will die, and then the patient dies from complications of the risky surgery. Is it better to try or not try at all? Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that it isn't up to the judiciary to decide whether a law like this is fair or not--they just apply the law as written. Attorneys who file suits under such a law are really just following the rules. If you don't like the law, complain to the LEGISLATURE:) Those are the guys who passed the law to begin with... The judiciary cannot change the law, we can only apply it:) I think we've alienated everyone else from this discussion:)

Thanks for keeping it classy guys.

I don't get that, but it's probably better that I don't get it...

It's true--mostly because we don't need people who watch Grey's, ER, or Rescue 911 (some of you might be old enough to remember that one) to think they can help someone in a car accident when in fact they might be seriously making the situation worse! Also, I'm the sweetest scumbag lawyer you'll ever meet, right Ski? Jk.

I would just like to add that "Good Samaritan Laws" do not offer absolute immunity from civil liability. Here is the Pennsylvania statute on point. Looking at the statute, you won't be covered if you (1) aren't currently certified; or (2) do something wrong (that was against your training in your certification). ***** 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.

Hahahaha awesome. I just looked online, and there is indeed such a website. It's not me though, I swear.

Could someone PLEASE spell out the midwest joke, because clearly I don't get it. And NO! I am not from the Midwest.