Case Background
The case took place from a ski slope collision at the Okemo Mountain Ski Area in Ludlow, Vermont, on January 19, 2019. Both Jeff Small, a Fairfield physician, and Hugh Baker, a fellow skier, were lawfully on the mountain as paying customers. Small had positioned himself downhill on the Timberline trail, an intermediate slope. He alleged that Baker, skiing from above, lost control, descended at an unsafe speed, and struck him violently, causing serious injuries.
Small argued that Baker ignored the Skier and Rider Responsibility Code, which places the duty on uphill skiers to avoid those ahead. Baker denied wrongdoing and countered that Small’s own actions created the risk. The trial focused on whether the incident fell within the inherent risks of skiing or whether Baker’s conduct went beyond what the law considers acceptable in the sport.
Cause
Small claimed the collision occurred because Baker had skied recklessly, failing to maintain control of his speed, direction, or ability to stop. He emphasized that Baker violated safety rules requiring skiers to yield to those below them. Baker denied negligence, asserting that skiing always involves risks, and that Small had assumed those risks when he entered the trail. Baker also raised special defenses under Vermont law, arguing Small had stopped in a place that obstructed the trail and was partially responsible for what followed.
Injury
The collision left Small with extensive injuries. He suffered a fracture of his right humerus, a dislocated shoulder, nerve damage, and lasting palsy in his dominant hand. The injuries required surgery under general anesthesia, follow-up procedures, and long-term physical therapy. He later reported continued weakness, nerve complications, and a loss of dexterity, impairing his ability to perform surgery as a practicing physician.
Damages
Small presented evidence of economic and non-economic damages. His medical bills from Bridgeport Hospital, physical therapy, anesthesia, and orthopedic specialists totaled over $13,000. He also claimed lost income as a surgeon and future loss of earning capacity, asserting his injuries had compromised his medical career. The jury ultimately awarded him both economic and non-economic damages. His non-economic claims centered on pain, reduced function, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Jeff Small, M.D.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Andrew Small
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Dante Brittis | Donald Welsch | Jeffrey Kaplan | Carl Durgin
Defendant(s): Hugh L. Baker
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Joseph Musco
· Experts for Defendant(s): Sam Lundstrom | Marc F. Glickstein | Seth R. Miller | Mark St. J. Petrozz
Claims
Small’s counsel insisted the crash was not a typical ski accident but the result of Baker’s reckless disregard for safety. They argued that Baker had failed to stay in control, ignored other skiers’ right of way, and skied at a dangerous speed. They framed the incident as one beyond “inherent risks,” comparing it to reckless driving on a road rather than ordinary skiing mishaps.
Defense
Baker’s counsel emphasized assumption of risk. They pointed to Vermont statutes recognizing that skiing inherently involves danger, arguing Small had knowingly accepted those risks. They accused Small of stopping in a blind spot, obstructing the trail in violation of the Skier and Rider Responsibility Code. Defense lawyers also claimed Small shared responsibility, either entirely or partially, for his own injuries.
Jury Verdict
On May 8, 2024, a Bridgeport jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Jeff Small. They found that Hugh Baker’s conduct went beyond normal skiing risks and amounted to recklessness. The jury awarded $583,205 in damages, covering past medical expenses, pain and suffering, and significant non-economic loss tied to Small’s injuries.
The verdict underscored that while skiing carries inherent dangers, the law distinguishes between ordinary mishaps and reckless conduct. Here, the jury decided Baker’s actions fell into the latter category, making him legally responsible for the collision.
Court Documents
