 custom reports as well.Seek v. Vail Resorts Inc.
This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Post-Accident Conduct [Docket No. 41] and Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Docket No. 51]. On November 7, 2017, the court held a hearing on the motions. At the hearing, Plaintiff was represented by E. Scott Savage and Defendants were represented by Adam Strachan. The court took the motions under advisement. The court has carefully considered the parties arguments as well as the law and facts relevant to the motions. Now being fully advised, the court issues the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
On March 10, 2014, a windstorm at Park City Mountain Resort blew a sign into Seek, striking her in the head. Seek alleges that she suffered brain injury and a knee injury from the accident. Defendants state that, at trial, they will concede liability for the sign falling on Seek. But Defendants will contest (1) the nature and extent of Seek's claimed brain injury and (2) the nature, extent, and causation of Seek's knee injury. Seek had injured her knee in a skiing accident the day before the incident with the sign. The parties dispute the extent of the knee injury attributable to the skiing accident and the sign incident.
Defendants ask the court to exclude all evidence and argument regarding: (1) structural changes that were made to the sign following the accident; (2) post-accident changes to Defendants' policies and procedures regarding erecting such signs in high-wind conditions; and (3) how or why the sign was disposed of after the accident.
Under Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[w]]hen measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measure is not admissible to prove... negligence.” Fed.R.Evid. 407. The structural changes and the policy and procedures change were enacted to make an accident less likely to occur and cannot be admitted to prove negligence. Moreover, in this case, the changes are irrelevant because Defendants admit that they had a duty to ensure that Seek was not hit by a sign and that they breached their duty. Therefore, evidence of Defendants' changes are inadmissible.
The parties further dispute whether evidence regarding when and how Defendants disposed of the sign is admissible. Defendants claim that the evidence is irrelevant because they concede that, for purposes of Seek's brain injury, the force of the sign was sufficient to cause the injury she sustained and, for purposes of the knee injury, the force of the sign was not insufficient to cause the knee injury. Although she has not filed any motion regarding spoliation, Seek contends that evidence as to the sign's disposal is relevant and she is entitled to a spoliation instruction requiring the jury to make an adverse inference concerning the force with which the sign struck Seek.
Seek has not attempted to produce evidence in support of her request for a spoliation instruction. Under Tenth Circuit precedent, Plaintiff must present evidence that Defendants disposed of the sign in bad faith. Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co., 563 F.3d 1136, 1149 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court's refusal to give adverse spoliation jury instruction without evidence of bad faith or intentional conduct); McQueen v. Aramark Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164678 (D. Utah 2016) (denying request for adverse instruction where defendant acted with gross negligence rather than bad faith). While Defendants may have been grossly negligent in disposing of the sign after someone was injured by it, there is no evidence that Defendant's disposed of the sign in bad faith. There were pictures of the sign from the time of the accident and Defendants changed signs as a result in the change of ownership at the resort. Seek accuses Defendants of concealing the sign change, but Seek never propounded interrogatories about sign changes and a layperson could easily notice the change in the signs. To claim that Defendants somehow “concealed” what was so blatantly obvious is a meritless attempt to insinuate bad faith where there is none.
Moreover, Plaintiff must show that she is prejudiced by the loss of the sign. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013, 1032 (10th Cir. 2007). Seek contends that the absence of the sign precludes her from proving the force of the impact. But Defendants admit that the sign could have hit her with sufficient force to cause her injuries. Defendants only dispute is whether the knee injury was caused by the sign incident or Seek's skiing accident the day before. The existence of the sign will not be relevant to that debate. Rather, the parties will rely on medical evidence and eyewitness testimony.
The court concludes that a jury instruction that Defendants destroyed evidence in bad faith is not warranted and would be highly prejudicial. Such an inference would permeate the trial and prejudice the jury against Defendants on an issue of little probative importance. Accordingly, the court grants Defendants' motion in limine.
Defendants' have marked Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit A and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as Exhibit B. Defendants intend to offer the two complaints to show that Plaintiff did not initially complain of her knee injury. Seek argues that her counsel did not originally believe there was enough evidence to include a claim for the knee injury due to a mistaken understanding of the facts and that he added the claim when it became apparent during discovery that there was sufficient evidence to support the claim. Seek contends that counsel's mistake in not including the knee injury in the original Complaint is embarrassing, but not relevant to the issues of the case.
Rather than relating to a fact of consequence, the Amended Complaint issue relates more to litigation procedures. There is nothing contradictory in the two complaints. The information regarding Seek falling awkwardly and tearing her ACL were merely added to the original Complaint. Defendants argue that they should be able to tell their story with respect to the inclusion of the knee injury in the Amended Complaint, but the real issue is the causation of the knee injury and Defendants can make all of their arguments regarding the causation of the knee injury without reference to the somewhat belated addition of the claim in the Amended Complaint. The court and jury need not wander off into correct litigation procedures and attorney testimony as part of Defendants' defense. To suggest that the claim was added only to enlarge Seek's special damages claim ignores that there was obviously a basis for including the claim in the Amended Complaint or Defendants would have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint or for summary judgment on...Pit Protection When Gun is Not Realistic?

I’m moving to a city that has BSL (thank god) but I know that it’s not always enforced so I may encounter put bulls on a daily basis. I’ve had my 40lb pup since May, but I’ve been living with my parents in a wealthy neighborhood that favors doodles and labs over any other breed. I have never seen a pit in my town in the 21 years I’ve lived here. 

But I imagine that this might change because I’m no longer going to be living in a rich place. Again, there’s BSL, but I doubt it’s enforced, so I’m worried I’ll see pits on walks and hikes and in parks. I know that carrying a gun is the best protection, but I have pretty significant depression and don’t think that having a gun accessible would be a good idea for me. I’m doing fantastic right now, but I know that could change. 

I carry a folding pocket knife regularly just for convenience on hikes and even just opening packages at home, but would a fixed blade be better? Or buying some bear or pepper spray? Bear spray would be great because I could also use it on hikes in griz country. 

Any tips would be appreciated. I’ve been working at a dog daycare and am fed up with what even the “good” pits can do.Glucose daddy personally was a web situated practise generally speaking described as a young, typically lower than 18-year-old people and an older, rich person requiring monetary aid in an union ordinarily think as transactional. Sugaring is definitely not a unique practice even so the online supplies more details improved its appeal. This training is starting to become increasingly prominent in the united kingdom because glucose daddies frequently provide more funds than old-fashioned glucose children. Additionally there is the glucose daddy personally plan that makes it a typical matchmaker for men trying to buy their particular wife or husband’s requires.
Sugar online dating services is raising in popularity with 1 reason are that lots of individuals are producing a business online. Sugar matchmaking United States Of America opinions getting over ten million members. And even though this may be precise, you will need to maybe not ignore that these stats were self-classified by club. This means that several of the customers upon these sugar online dating sites could be real users and also spending online affiliates deciding to make the state appear to be most accurate.
Glucose daddy for me personally is apparently the number one glucose daddy internet in terms of many energetic group. Many women are discovering they can have the glucose father they have been looking for without the need to fork out a lot of time looking other places. It will be correct that lots of men are actually interested in these websites when it comes to proven fact that they give all of them an opportunity to relate with a refreshing partner. This may signify there are many affluent and effective daddies online dating services on the internet than discover billionaire online dating dad web sites.
Many of the women that make use of the web site posses stated that the sum of the focus their unique sugardaddy gets them is