Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Family accuses Vail of Web page shenanigans in girl's rape case

By Sue Lindsay, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published March 9, 2008 at 4:03 p.m.
Updated March 10, 2008 at 6:02 a.m.

Text size  
David Lorenzen has an arrest record dating back to 1989.

David Lorenzen has an arrest record dating back to 1989.

More Local News

More stories »

Map my news

An old Web page saved in cyberspace shows that Vail Associates lied in a federal court case, according to attorneys for a 17-year-old girl who charges she was raped by a ski instructor.

Vail denies the charge and defense attorney Edwin Aro dismissed the claims against the resort as a "sham."

Last year, the girl and her family sued Vail and instructor David Lorenzen, 45, who gave private ski lessons to the girl at Beaver Creek for 10 years, from the time she was in second grade.

The lawsuit charges that Lorenzen took her to his apartment, gave her alcohol and raped her on Jan. 7, 2006.

In a criminal case stemming from the incident, Lorenzen was sentenced in August to 90 days in jail plus six years probation for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The family, who lives in Florida, declined interviews through attorney John Pineau because of the pending litigation.

In the suit, the girl's mother said she paid Lorenzen $595 for a private lesson, but Lorenzen took the girl to his apartment after the first run. The mother, thinking her daughter had a full day's lesson, tipped him $100 at the end of the day when he brought the girl back.

When the mother commented about her daughter's disheveled appearance, according to the girl's deposition, Lorenzen replied, "Yeah, I worked her over real good."

A centerpiece of the negligence claim against Vail was that the family relied on assurances from Vail that its instructors were responsible, reliable and that background checks were done on them.

Lorenzen, a ski instructor at Vail for 18 years, has an arrest record dating back to 1989 for possession of marijuana, criminal mischief, trespassing, vehicle theft and contempt of court, as well as DUIs in 1994, 1995, 2000 and 2002.

The girl's mother said she was shocked when she learned about Lorenzen's arrest record.

"This person had a known criminal record that Vail was aware of," she said in a deposition.

In its response to the lawsuit, Vail contended that it never promised customers that criminal checks were done on employees and supplied copies of its old Web pages to prove it.

Checks in dispute

But the family's attorney said Vail supplied phony Web pages to support its contentions.

To the contrary, Pineau said, a search of old Web sites through www.web.archive.com revealed that Vail had promised since 2002 that any ski instructor working with children must have a "clean criminal record."

Furthermore, he said, the archive site contained no pages similar to the ones the Vail supplied to the court as its Web site. When defense attorneys attempted another search of Vail's sites through the Web archive, they found that a block had been placed "on the incriminating Web pages," Pineau said.

"As the record now stands before the court, it appears that Vail's affidavits are false and misleading, the alleged copy of Vail's Web site is fabricated and Vail has attempted to destroy evidence," he said in court pleadings.

Aro said the company would have no comment on the allegations beyond its recently filed response to the plaintiff's motion.

The Web pages referring to a "clean criminal record" are "immaterial" to the case because they come from a Web site for job applicants that customers like the girl's mother would not normally consult and did not in this case, Aro said in the response.

Beginning in 2002, the site said that ski instructors who have a clean criminal record as well as other requirements could be considered for jobs instructing children aged 3-14, Aro said in the response.

The mother in this case began taking her two daughters to the resort in 1996 - six years before that information was posted, Aro said. By the time it was, the family had a long-established relationship with Lorenzen and the girls were in their teens.

Vail aware of DUI

He also said that the mother never previously claimed to have seen the Web site or referred to "criminal background checks," but only said that she believed the resort did background checks on its instructors.

Although Vail said it began doing criminal checks on all ski instructors in 2004 and knew that Lorenzen had one DUI conviction, he wasn't barred from working as a ski instructor because his job didn't require him to drive, other employees made sure he didn't have liquor on his breath when he was with clients, he taught adults and generally he got rave reviews as a ski instructor.

As for blocking access to the archived sites, Vail denies doing that, saying the job site was generally accessible on the archive Web site and was controlled by a recruitment marketing agency not connected to Vail that may have taken down the pages.

Aro also said that Vail is not liable in the case because the resort couldn't have foreseen that Lorenzen would sexually assault a ski school student.

Pineau contends that the Florida family never would have entrusted their two young daughters to Lorenzen if they had known his background.

lindsays@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5181

Comments

  • March 9, 2008

    6:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brix57 writes:

    Odd, the lines start to blur as children as young as 14 or less, can be charged as adults in committing crimes, but when children are the supposed victims, that age is 18.

  • March 9, 2008

    7:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmfslots writes:

    Vail- Time to pat up! Having this knowledge and still employeeing the man makes you liable. People place trust in the instructors and teachers hired to instruct. I'm sick of seeing where teachers and others that are in a place of persons in a position of trust. Burn Baby burn.

  • March 9, 2008

    7:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    It's time to lift the " Vail " on some unsavory practices & behavior..

  • March 9, 2008

    8:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    newsjunkie writes:

    Vail must be run by a bunch of idiots and I must say, their attorneys are leading them to the slaughter. if they had any brains at all - they would have settled this awful case from the git-go. all it does is serve to make them look VERY bad. this is the worst press possible to have put in front of their rich clientele. they knew d*** well this creep had a criminal record - but since he was a popular instructor who was apparently booked solid - they made lots of money off of him - so they chose to willfully ignore his alarming criminal record. they deserve every bit of bad publicity they are getting. shame on them.

  • March 9, 2008

    8:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JLS writes:

    How many ski instructors would there actually be if one could not work in that capacity after being arrested for using marijuana and/or drunk driving? And how does that affect his ability to be a ski instructor anyway?

    Personally, the idea of paying someone to give your daughter ski lessons, and then having him seduce or actually rape her makes my blood boil and my stomach churn; but, if he raped her, shouldn't it be the instructor who burns for this? (In my opinion, even if it was seduction, he should be criminally liable since it was an instructor/position of trust situation.)

  • March 10, 2008

    9 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ghostie writes:

    WRONG nospmisjo! He got CHARGED with sexual assault, second-degree kidnapping and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was SENTENCED for a lesser charge. She was 17, so it doesn't really matter how she felt about him since she was a minor and he got her drunk. This was a disgusting act and he got away with a slap on the wrist.

    http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dl...

  • March 10, 2008

    9:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    AngelontheSidelines writes:

    Colorado age of consent is 17, some states make consent invalid if the girl is drunk, but I don't think Colorado is one.

    But he is an evil pot smoker, and DUI convictions show his disregard for law and public safety. But then show me a ski instructor that does not drink or smoke, and I'll show you the exception.

  • March 10, 2008

    9:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    he has not aged well

  • March 10, 2008

    10:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    newsjunkie writes:

    for all of you on here claiming that the DUI and marijuana convictions does not signal that this guy was a danger - there was also evidence in this case that this guy had harrassed other female Vail employees (who are mostly young people) and Vail knew about it. they knew this guy was creepy and they just let him keep on giving ski lessons. but in any event - regardless of what they knew about this guy and what what in his background - people put their trust in VAIL when they put their kids in ski school. per the principles of respondent superior, VAIL is responsible for whatever happens during those lessons. parents have a right to expect their child will be safe during a lesson. it is disgusting to me that Vail is trying to claim here that this is not their problem. i hope a jury really sticks it to them. so much for world class skiing instruction, huh?

  • March 10, 2008

    10:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ghostie writes:

    From the Vail Daily:

    "A Colorado Bureau of Investigation records search found Lorenzen has been arrested for driving drunk four times. Records show he also has been arrested for possession of marijuana, trespassing, criminal mischief and attempted vehicle theft."

    BIG difference between this and occasional pot smoking/single DUI conviction. Stop trying to excuse this man in any way.

    By the way, read the rest of the Vail article. They have a TAPED CONFESSION of the guy admitting to the rape. I have no idea why he was acquitted of the assault charge (or if he even was...the RMN does some crappy reporting to not even mention this taped confession).

  • March 10, 2008

    10:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    newsjunkie writes:

    at the time the trial was going on - the media reports suggested the defense was arguing the young women consented to the sexual activity and she's 17, old enough to know what she's doing - disgusting, i know - but that is the defense made in acquaintance rape cases - it really is the only defense available. Acquaintance rape cases are very difficult for the prosecution to win. the jury gets caught up in the he said/she said - and even if the victim is underage - they look at the fact that she willingly left the resort grounds with this guy and she willingly drank alcohol. If he testified - I'm sure he maintained that she came on to him, that she was flirty, etc. and that she claimed to be attracted to him. the jury also probably felt the taped phone calls were a "set-up" and that the police essentially trapped the defendant into admitting the rape - so i wouldn't be surprised if they discounted the taped phone call evidence. I'm not saying that any of this is o.k. or that she deserved to be assaulted - in fact, I believe quite to the contrary. i'm just trying to explain why the criminal case resulted in a conviction on a lesser charge and not sexual assault. the jury, essentially feeling very torn about the conduct of both parties - entered a compromise verdict. it's unfortunate - but that's the way these acquaintance rape cases go.

  • March 10, 2008

    11:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    And who has the deep pockets? IF she consented what are the damages?

  • March 10, 2008

    11:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    newsjunkie writes:

    well the issue of consent has not been conclusively determined by anyone. the jury in the criminal case found that he was guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. they did not find that she consented to the sexual activity. so - that issue is still out there and she is claiming she did not consent - and that she suffered emotional and mental harm as a result of the actions of Vail's employee. and that her family was misled by represetations Vail made about its ski school program and its instructors.

    of course, Vail has the deep pockets and this creep doesn't have two nickels to rub together. no duh. but who is the party who makes the big bucks off of folks such as this young woman and her family? that's right - it's VAIL - they make millions off visitors to their resort such as this family - why should they just get to walk away when something really bad happens during one of these transactions (i.e., ski lesson)??? how arrogant, immoral and disgusting for Vail to just shrug its shoulders and say, not our problem - we didn't know he would rape anyone. the only right thing to do is to make amends to this family, publicly apologize for what happened, and more importantly, demonstrate that it will institute as many safeguards as possible to make sure this doesn't happen again. if Vail had any interest in maintaining a good public image - they would have ponied up from the start.