Survey of Ski Law in the United States Copyright 1996 by James H Chalat Prepared for the CLE International Ski Liability Conference Vail Colorado October 31 November 1 1996 The principal legal issues pertaining to ski safety is the scope effect and or constitutionality of the so called inherent danger statutes which have proliferated throughout the country Colorado Vermont California Utah and other states have construed the inherent danger statutes to require a jury to determine the nature and extent of the duty Other states notably Idaho simply hold that as a matter of law any injury not caused by a breach of a specific duty imposed on the ski area by the state s ski act is a risk inherent in the sport Several states such as New York impose either by statute or common law a reasonable standard of care Second there is a brewing dispute about the duty of care owed by skiers to each other particularly whether the negligence or recklessness of one skier is a risk assumed by another skier in the context of a skier skier collision The trend here is to hold that skiers do not assume the risk of another skier s negligence skiing is not a contact sport This standard has been adopted by statute in Colorado and Alaska However some states such as California allow juries to determine whether this is a risk assumed A minority of jurisdictions hold that skier skier collisions are a risk assumed by skiers Third state laws vary as to the level of care owed by the ski area operator to passengers of ski lifts Is it ordinary care or the highest duty of care State laws vary to such a degree and court decisions are often so muddled that identical accidents can occur and the legal ramifications will be entirely differently from one state to another This outline surveys the statutes case law and commentary regarding skiing in the United States It updates our last review of the subject which was published in our Winter 1993 1994 issue of Ski Safety News To go directly to a particular State select from the following SKI LAW BY STATE Alaska Illinois Montana North Carolina Tennesee Arizona Indiana Nevada North Dakota California Maine New Hampshire Ohio Colorado Massachusetts New Jersey Connetictcut Michigan New Mexico Utah Vermont Oregon Washington Pennsylvania West Virginia Wyoming Idaho Minnesota New York Rhode Island Wisconsin ALASKA Inherent dangers are those natural and inescapable risks Statute Alaska Statutes Sections 05 45 010 et seq A person engaged in the sport of skiing may not recover from a ski area operator for injuries resulting from the inherent risks of skiing Inherent risks are defined to include weather steepness snow surface or subsurface conditions collisions with other skiers or with manmade objects Ski area operators are obliged to post signs warning of their limited liability and of the inherent risks The risk of a skier skier injury is not a risk assumed in an action by one skier against another AS 05 45 100 a AS 18 60 822 requires ski areas to operate under a snow safety and operation plan approved by either the commissioner of public safety or the United States agency managing the land upon which the area is operated Cases In Hibschman v City of Valdez 821 P 2d 1354 Alaska 1991 the court held that it was a question for the jury whether a manmade jump was a dangerous artificial condition or an inherent danger and reversed a summary judgment further that when an injury is caused by a combination of skier negligence and an inherent danger then comparative negligence applies and the inherent danger serves to reduce rather than bar recovery In University of Alaska v Shanti 835 P 2d 1225 Alaska 1992 sledders were entitled to jury trial as to whether the University had a duty to warn that the hill s terrain would propel sledders into trees ARIZONA No ski safety act Case Miller v Arnal Corp 632 P 2d 987 Ariz App 1981 This is the only ski rescue case and it is an extraordinary opinion Plaintiffs were on the mountain after hiking up without lift passes A blizzard moved in rescue attempts failed but were reasonably attempted and therefore the patrol was exonerated of liability CALIFORNIA Mixed inherent danger common law negligence Statute California does not have a state ski safety act however Ski Area lobbyists have prevailed upon five counties to write inherent danger ordinances Alpine Co Ord No 562 94 Amador Co Code Sect ion12 48 101 et seq El Dorado Co Code Section 9 20 010 Nevada Co Code Section G IV art 19 Placer County Code Section 12 130 et seq See also Cal Penal Code Section 602 q provides that it is a misdemeanor to ski on a closed ski trail Section 653 i makes leaving the scene of a skiing accident punishable by up to a 1 000 00 fine Aerial passenger tramways are governed by Cal Labor Code Section 7340 7357 Trams are subject to regulation by the Division of Labor Personnel employed to operate ski lifts must be qualified in accord with administrative standards set by regulations issued by the Division Cal Public Utilities Code Section 212 c excludes ski lifts from the definition of common carrier Recent Cases Collision Cases The Skier Responsibility Code of Placer County establishes duties of skiers a breach of which raises a presumption of negligence A skier does not assume the risk of another skier s negligence in a skier vs skier collision case Zubrick v Ford 56 Cal Rptr 2d 494 96 Daily Journal 10 853 1996 WL 498126 Cal Ct App 3rd Dist 1996 In another skier vs skier case the plaintiff had been paralyzed by defendant skier who had fallen on the plaintiff The evidence showed that the defendant had been drinking Nevertheless the trial judge had dismissed the case finding that the risk of collision was inherent and thus assumed in the sport The appellate court reversed and held that consumption of alcoholic beverages is not within the range of activities involved in the sport of downhill snow skiing and to the extent the consumption of alcohol increases the risk of collision between the drinking skier and other skiers that increased risk is not one which is inherent in the sport and was not assumed merely by participating in the sport Freeman v Hale 30 Cal App 4th 1388 36 Cal Rptr 2d 418 Cal Ct App 4th Dist 1994 Waivers in binding cases Olsen v Breeze 55 Cal Rptr 2d 818 48 Cal App 4th 608 Cal Ct App 3rd Dist 1996 Waivers obtained at the time of the rental purchase or servicing of ski bindings do not violate state unfair competition laws Such releases are enforceable and may also
View Full Document
Unlocking...