Doug Olcott believes his 15 years as a defense attorney gives him a “leg up” representing plaintiffs. It did in his case against a snow tubing park, where his client suffered a catastrophic injury. “I think I have a better understanding as to what the defendants are going to do and then being able to anticipate how they're going to approach a game because, quite frankly, in my 35 years doing this, not a lot has changed on the defense bar side,” he tells host Brendan Lupetin. In this case breakdown, Doug explains how he overcame a signed waiver, exposed defense contradictions, and challenged an expert witness who said his client “lacked common sense.” The result: a $693,000 verdict, Somerset County's largest in at least 20 years: 

Learn More and Connect

☑️ Doug Olcott | LinkedIn

☑️ Edgar Snyder & Associates on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

☑️ Brendan Lupetin | LinkedIn

☑️ Lupetin & Unatin, LLC

☑️ Connect: Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube

Episode Preview

• Doug’s client was attending a children's birthday party at Hidden Valley's snow tubing park when her tube accelerated down the hill and launched off the back of a runout embankment.
• She suffered a T12 burst fracture requiring surgical placement of two rods across five levels of her thoracic spine, along with a pelvic fracture and other lesser fractures.
• After the court granted summary judgment on negligence claims based on a signed waiver, the case proceeded to trial on recklessness only—a significantly higher burden requiring proof of intentional or reckless disregard for known risks.
• Doug and co-counsel Jerry Hutton proved recklessness by establishing three critical failures: no workers stationed at the bottom to stop tubes, no deceleration mats deployed, and no barrier to prevent riders from going over the embankment.
• The defense's own policies and procedures contradicted their trial testimony—interrogatory answers identified specific safety protocols that witnesses couldn't verify had been followed on the day of the incident.
• Two independent parent-witnesses from the birthday party testified about the client's character and the community's response to her injury, establishing her credibility.
• The defense expert's own guidebook and Hidden Valley's written policies contradicted his trial testimony that the plaintiff "lacked common sense" for sitting on the tube—the approved method according to their own documents.
• YouTube videos found by the plaintiff's expert showed repeated instances of riders going over the embankment, refuting defense claims that it had never happened before.
• The jury returned a verdict of $693,000—Somerset County's largest verdict in at least 20 years—and the plaintiffs are pursuing punitive damages in a second trial.

Ready to refer or collaborate on med mal, medical negligence, and catastrophic injury cases? Visit our attorney referral page at PAMedMal.com/Refer. We handle cases in Pennsylvania and across the United States.

Produced and Powered by LawPods