Colorado Ski Safety Act Update
| Publication year | 1981 |
| Pages | 1610 |
| Citation | Vol. 10 No. 7 Pg. 1610 |
1981, July, Pg. 1610. Colorado Ski Safety Act Update
The Colorado Ski Safety Act of 1979 ("Ski Act") has been in effect for two ski seasons.(fn1) The fundamental reason for enactment of the Ski Act was the concern among area operators and their insurers that the large plaintiffs' verdicts in such cases as Sunday v. Stratton(fn2) and Rosen v. LTV Recreation Development(fn3) would cause a rash of large awards. By codifying the duties of skiers and ski area operators, the Ski Act was meant to help reduce the ski area operator's exposure to suit.
Since the Act went into effect (July 1, 1979), two amendments have been passed. Moreover, certain trends in ski law can now be discerned. This article updates this author's previous analysis of the provisions of the Ski Act.(fn4)
Ski cases naturally fit into four categories. Fall cases involve injuries to the skier due to a fall or a collision with a natural or man-made object. Collision cases result from an accident between two skiers. Lift cases concern injuries due to the failure or improper use of chair lifts, rope tows or other uphill devices. Equipment cases result from improperly fitted or maintained equipment.
Two significant ski law cases have been reported during the past two years in courts outside of Colorado: Blair v. Mt. Hood Meadows Development Corp.(fn5) and Cadel v. Sherburne Corp.(fn6)
In Blair, the Oregon court rejected the inherent danger test first enunciated in Wright v. Mt. Mansfield Lift, Inc.(fn7) Dale Blair started down a run called North Canyon intending to have lunch at the lodge. From the head of the trail, the lodge was visible straight ahead and down the slope. However, the lower part of the run turned sharply to the right and then to the left.
Blair missed the first turn and headed directly for the lodge. He fell into a creek bed and was injured. He argued that the trail had been negligently marked and that he was led to believe the run extended straight to the lodge.
The trial court instructed the jury that the ski area operator owed no duty to guard against those dangers which are inherent in skiing.(fn8) The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for new trial. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court overstated the principal of assumption of risk and that a skier assumes only such risks which are both known to skiers and necessary to the sport.(fn9)
Cadel v. Sherburne Corp.(fn10) is the first reported "equipment case." June Cadel rented boots and skis with so-called release bindings. She fell, the bindings did not release and she was injured. Cadel sued the
area operator which had rented her the equipment and claimed negligence and breach of warranty in the fitting of the bindings. Cadel lost and appealed the adverse verdict. The decision on appeal concerns evidentiary matters not relevant here. The opinion is noteworthy only because the court permitted the case to go to the jury, thus recognizing the validity of the theory of liability.
Four federal decisions were reported during 1979 and 1980 which involved skiing, but were primarily concerned with antitrust, jurisdiction, patent law and administrative law.
The first, United States v. Olin Ski Co., Inc.,(fn11) involved a suit by the United States against a ski manufacturer for violation of an anti-trust consent order which prohibited the Olin Ski Company from publishing or circulating suggested price lists.
Aigner v. Bell Helicopter, Inc.(fn12) concerned a helicopter crash in the Canadian Rockies where the practice of flying skiers to wilderness snow fields is popular. Plaintiffs were Illinois residents who brought suit in the United States District Court for Northern Illinois. The opinion concerned two personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial