Pennsylvania Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Andrew Roebuck (Male, 41 Years), 

Jennifer Roebuck (Female)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

James L. Griffith;
James L. Griffith, Esquire, LLC;
Blue Bell,
PA,
for
Andrew Roebuck, Jennifer Roebuck

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Todd Albert; M.D.; Orthopedic Surgery; New York,
NY called by:
James L. Griffith ■ Andrew Verzilli; M.B.A.; Economics; Lansdale,
PA called by:
James L. Griffith ■ Andrés Calderón; Ph.D.; Biomechanical; Malvern,
PA called by:
James L. Griffith ■ Howard Medoff; Ph.D., P.E.; Biomechanical; Philadelphia,
PA called by:
James L. Griffith ■ Steven Gumerman; Ph.D.; Vocational Rehabilitation/Counseling; Huntington Valley,
PA called by:
James L. Griffith ■ Jonathan Raines; M.D.; Psychiatry; Gladwyne,
PA called by:
James L. Griffith

Defendant(s):

Bear Creek Management Co. LLC

Defense Attorney(s):

Monica E. O’Neill;
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP;
Philadelphia,
PA,
for
Bear Creek Management Co. LLC ■ Kaylie Garza;
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP;
Philadelphia,
PA,
for
Bear Creek Management Co. LLC

Defendant Expert(s):

P. Stoddard;
Snow Tubing;
Shoreview,
MN called by:
Monica E. O’Neill, Kaylie Garza ■ Chad Staller;
Economics;
Philadelphia,
PA called by:
Monica E. O’Neill, Kaylie Garza ■ Evan Kovalsky;
Orthopedic Surgery;
Norristown,
PA called by:
Monica E. O’Neill, Kaylie Garza ■ John Risser;
Vocational Assessment;
Elizabethtown,
PA called by:
Monica E. O’Neill, Kaylie Garza ■ Irving Scher;
Biomechanical;
Los Angeles,
CA called by:
Monica E. O’Neill, Kaylie Garza ■ Jerome Gottlieb;
Psychiatry;
Lancaster,
PA called by:
Monica E. O’Neill, Kaylie Garza

On Feb. 18, 2010, plaintiff Andrew Roebuck, 41, a printing and advertising specialist, was with his wife and two sons and a friend on a church ski-trip. The group was at Bear Creek Ski and Recreation Area, in the borough of Macungie, in Lehigh County. Roebuck claimed that, when the snow-tubing run opened that evening, he and his sons got in line. He did not see any signs instructing or warning snow-tubers about the course. He maintained that as he snow-tubed down the 749-foot icy slope, his speed increased and was unable to stop (he stated that he attempted to drag his feet) as he entered the slope’s 203-foot runoff area, and he vaulted into a safety net. He suffered a fractured vertebra and a herniated disc in his neck. Roebuck sued Bear Creek, alleging the recreation area failed to warn of a dangerous condition. His counsel presented a memo drafted by the resort’s night manager immediately following Roebuck’s accident, in which the manager described the snow-tube run as "smoking fast." Despite Roebuck’s accident, Bear Creek kept the snow-tube run open for an additional 45 minutes, before closing it. Roebuck’s expert in biomechanical engineering (who cited a report by Roebuck’s previous expert in biomechanical engineering) faulted the resort for failing to groom the runoff area, which had accumulated an icy sheet, causing a dangerous condition. The ice, according to the expert, increased the coefficient of friction between the snow tube and the slope, which allowed Roebuck to descend at dangerous speeds, estimated at 35 miles per hour. As Roebuck entered the runoff area, he was unable to stop due to his speed and the fact that the 203-foot runoff area was about 42 feet short of the length it should have been. According to the expert, a runoff area, pursuant to industry standards, should be one-third as long as the downhill slope. Unable to stop, Roebuck was flung into the cargo net at about 17 miles per hour. The expert concluded that Bear Creek could have taken about 20 minutes to groom the slope by fluffing up the snow and breaking up the ice, or it should have shut down the snow-tube run to not expose people to harm. Roebuck and witnesses testified about the icy conditions and their inability to properly stop upon reaching the bottom of the slope. They also testified about how they did not see any warning signs as they entered the snow-tube run. Roebuck’s counsel argued that, in addition to the lack of warnings, no one who worked for the resort had ridden the snow-tubing run before the staff opened it the night of the accident. The defense maintained that Roebuck was a trespasser who should not have been on the snow-tube slope, since he did not purchase a ticket or sign a liability-waiver form. Roebuck reportedly was given the ticket (along with two others), which was marked non-transferable, by an unidentified patron. The defense asserted that had Roebuck properly purchased the ticket, he would have undergone a process that included signing a liability waiver form and receiving safety instructions. Had Roebuck gone through the necessary safety procedures, he would have been informed of the inherent dangers of the snow-tube run; but since Roebuck failed to do this, he assumed risk and absolved the resort of any liability for his injuries, argued the defense. The defense’s expert in snow tubing opined that the signage was visible and prominent leading up to the slope, which instructed uses to drag their feet upon reaching the bottom of the slope, and that injury was possible if users did not follow the rules. Two Bear Creek attendants testified that Roebuck did not attempt to drag his feet. The defense cited the testimonies of Roebuck’s son and Roebuck’s friend, who reportedly testified that they saw the posted signs. The defense’s expert in biomechanical engineering testified that the snow-tube run was a well-designed facility which met all safety and industry standards. The expert determined that Roebuck hit the cargo net at less than one mile per hour. According to the defense, the rates of 35 miles per hour and 17 miles per hour proposed by Roebuck’s counsel were determined in a hypothetical situation by the defense’s expert in biomechanical engineering. The expert stated that had Roebuck snow-tubed on an ice rink that was angled similarly to the Bear Creaks ski slope, Roebuck would have traveled at a speed of 35 miles per hour and impacted the cargo net at 17 miles per hour.

Roebuck was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a fracture of the C6 vertebra, near the base of the neck. He was placed in a collar (which he wore for two months) and released. He followed up with his family doctor, who referred him to a neurosurgeon, who put him on a course of physical therapy, which he treated for about five weeks. Roebuck underwent an MRI, which showed a herniation of intervertebral disc C6-7. With the therapy reportedly worsening his condition, Roebuck eventually presented to an orthopedic surgeon, who determined that, in addition to the fracture and herniation, he had bruising on his spinal cord. In September, Roebuck underwent a fusion in which a plate and screws were implanted. For the next year, he continued to see the surgeon and treat with pain medication. According to Roebuck, about three months post-accident, he began experiencing depression due to the ongoing pain and inability to drive and work. He thought about committing suicide. He presented to a psychiatrist and then to a vocational-rehabilitation professional, who had training in psychology, whom Roebuck continued to see at the time of trial. His surgeon causally related his injuries and treatment to the accident, and opined that Roebuck suffered a permanent injury, which would not benefit from additional treatment. According to the physician, if Roebuck were to suffer another accident, like a rear-end collision, his fusion could break and result in paralysis. Roebuck’s psychiatrist and vocational-rehabilitation professional attributed Roebuck’s depression to his injuries. His psychiatrist testified that he met all the criteria of suffering from major depression, which included not sleeping and not eating. According the vocational-rehabilitation professional, Roebuck, whose business once served Fortune 500 companies, stands to lose $1.3 million in future lost earning capacity. Roebuck testified that he suffers chronic pain, which radiates into his arms and causes numbness in two fingers of his right (dominant) hand. He said that he only takes over-the-counter pain medication, since he does not want to become addicted to narcotics. He reportedly needs to keep working in order to support his sons, one of whom is in college, and the other is about to graduate from college. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering, and his wife sought damages for her claim for loss of consortium. The defense’s expert in psychiatry testified that Roebuck suffers from a lesser form of depression than his psychiatrist testified to. The defense’s expert in vocational assessment opined that Roebuck was able to continue working without restrictions, and that any decrease in his business’ revenue was due to the Internet, which stemmed the need for Roebuck’s business of printing and advertising. Bear Creeks’ expert in economics concluded that any economic loss was due to the lack of industry demand, rather than Roebuck’s injuries. According to the expert, starting five years prior to the accident, Roebuck’s business continually declined, and would have continued to do so regardless of the accident. The defense maintained that Roebuck, post-accident, continued to take international trips, use his all-terrain vehicle, participate in family vacations, and played on his church’s softball team. Roebuck reportedly admitted to the activities on cross-examination.

The jury found Roebuck was 5 percent liable and Bear Creek was 95 percent liable. Roebuck and his wife were determined to receive $2,013,171, which was accordingly reduced to $1,912,512.45.

Andrew Roebuck: $122,000 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost; $211,171 Personal Injury: Past Lost Earnings Capability; $1,200,000 Personal Injury: Future Lost Earnings Capability; $380,000 Personal Injury: pain and suffering; Jennifer Roebuck: $100,000 Personal Injury: loss of consortium

Actual Award:

$1,912,512.45

Judge:

M. Theresa Johnson

Trial Length:

2
 weeks

Trial Deliberations:

1.5
 days

Post Trial:

The court denied defense counsel’s motions, which alleged trial errors.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs’ and defense counsel.