ALBANY, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) – Penalties are appropriate for a skier who was less than forthcoming with evidence during his lawsuit against the owner of Hunter Mountain ski resort.
New York’s Appellate Division, Third Department ruled that way in the case of Joseph Bruno vs. Peak Resorts. At issue was a comment made by Bruno on a blog that he later deleted, not to mention an apparent history of concealment when it came to other online activities.
A penalty will be assessed by the Greene County Supreme Court before trial, though Bruno can avoid that if he produces the deleted comment.
“In light of Plaintiff’s candor throughout the discovery process… we find no imposition of an adverse inference charge,” Justice Elizabeth Garry wrote.
Bruno alleged his injuries were the result of Peak Resorts failing to post closed notices on certain ski trails. The defendant asked for any social media postings about Bruno’s accident, though Bruno denied he had made any.
It turned out that he had made several, plus the comment on the blog entry. It was important in the court’s eyes that the comment was made while Bruno was represented by counsel.
Bruno said his comment asked whether the trail on which he was injured was closed on the day of his accident. Witnesses have testified that Bruno knew the trail was closed.
When Bruno fessed up to the blog comment, he also produced 12 Facebook posts and comments relating to his injury. He had posted a photo of his x-ray.
“This production contradicted his earlier responses to defendants' demands for social media discovery, in which plaintiff had acknowledged possessing a Facebook account, but denied making posts or posting photos relative to his accident, injuries or activities since the accident,’” Garry wrote.
As for his comment, if it related to whether the trail was closed, the court found it was important for Peak Resorts’ possible defenses but not so important that dismissal of the entire case is warranted as a punishment.