Liability for Skiing Accident Found to be Barred by Signed Waiver and Under the Skier's Responsibility Act

The case of Lin v. Shawnee Mountain Ski Resort, No. 4031-CV-2022 (C.P. Monroe Co. Dec. 11, 2024 Williamson, J.), the court granted the Defendant ski resort’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case arising out of a skiing accident at the resort.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was relatively a novice at skiing.  As part of the ski rental process at the resort, the Plaintiff executed a release or waiver document.

After some time on the “bunny slope,” the Plaintiff and her friend went to ski on other trails on the mountain. 

At some point during the day, when coming down one of the other trails, the Plaintiff came all the way down the hill and was unable to slow or stop allegedly due to icy conditions and missed crashing into the ski racks situated outside of the lodge but skied into the lodge itself. The Plaintiff, who was wearing a helmet, went head first through a glass window of the lodge. 

The Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the collision, she suffered a broken pelvis and multiple stomach lacerations which have resulted in considerable scarring.

The Plaintiff sued on various theories of negligence. In part, the Plaintiff alleged that the lodge was located too close to the bottom of the trail, that the Defendants failed to provide some sort of stopping mechanism in front of the ski racks in the lodge, and that the Defendants should have installed safety glass in the lodge's windows. The Plaintiff additionally alleged that the trail she came down was mislabeled as a easier or beginner's slope.

The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff’s inability to stop and result an accident where inherent risks of skiing which is deemed to be an assumed risk under the Pennsylvania Skier’s Responsibility Act.

In the alternative, the Defendants alleged that the Plaintiff's claims were barred by the release that the Plaintiff signed at the time she rented the ski equipment.

The Defendants also requested summary judgment on the punitive damages claims asserted.

Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, holding in pertinent part, that the Plaintiff’s negligence claims were barred by both the Skier’s Responsibility Act and the liability waiver that the Plaintiff had signed before commencing her skiing activities.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 29, 2025).

Snowboarder's Estate Denied Recovery Under Skier's Responsibility Act

In the case of Birl v. Shawnee Mountain, No. 3:22-CV-1598 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2025 Bloom, MAG. J.), the court entered summary judgment in favor of a Defendant’s ski resort after finding that the Skier’s Responsibility Act prevented the Plaintiffs from taking their case over injuries sustained by their son to trial.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs sued Shawnee Mountain Ski Resort with a paralysis suffered by the then 16 year old Plaintiff who struck a light pole while snowboarding. The Plaintiffs alleged that the pole was unguarded and improperly placed.

The court noted that the law recognizes that snowboarding is a dangerous activity. The court additionally noted that the law recognizes that riding a snowboard in a terrain park to perform tricks and jumps increases the risk of injury associated with that activity.

The court ruled that, even accepting the Plaintiffs’ version of the events, that is, that the course caused the minor Plaintiff’s loss of control and, ultimately, his collision with a off-trail obstacle, the court noted that this risk was inherent to the activity undertaken by the minor Plaintiff, which was snowboarding in a terrain park.

As such, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the ski resort.

Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source of image:  Photo by Allesandro Maculotti on www.unsplash.com.

Judge Mannion of Federal Middle District Addresses Motion for Summary Judgment in a Skiing Accident Case

In the case of Mattei v. Tuthill Corp., No. 3:19-CV-2196 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2023 Mannion, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case arising out of a skiing accident. 

As noted by Judge Malachy E. Mannion at the outset of his Opinion, this case raised questions as to the inherent risks of downhill skiing, the enforceability of releases on lift tickets, and the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged by the Plaintiff relative to the Defendant's alleged gross negligence and recklessness.

The court reviewed the terms of the Pennsylvania Skier's Responsibility Act and ruled that the “no duty” rule relieving ski resorts of liability under the Act for common and inherent risk attendant with skiing was in dispute in this matter because it was unclear as to whether the Plaintiff was skiing on or off a designated trail at the Blue Mountain Resort in the Poconos.  

Judge Malachy E. Mannion additionally noted that there was other conflicting evidence as to whether the hazard at issue was perceptible to skiers.

The court found that whether a certain danger is perceptible to skiers is generally relevant to the question of whether that risk is inherent to downhill skiing.

The court additionally found that the Defendant had not proven that the Plaintiff’s negligence claims were barred by the exculpatory release contained on the back of the lift ticket.

Judge Mannion noted that, in this case, the lift ticket was an exemplar. There was no other proof offered beyond a disputed inference that the Plaintiff actually received a lift ticket.

Given that the court also found that there were genuine issues of material fact relative to the Defendant’s alleged gross negligence and recklessness involving an alleged conscious disregard of the risk of harm allegedly posed by an alleged five foot ditch on the ski trail, summary judgment was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia law office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Mati Mango on www.pexels.com.

First Time Skier Gets a Pass

In the case of Aldosari v. Tuthill Corp., No. 17-0626 (C.P. Carbon Co. Dec. 13, 2019 Nanovic, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a skiing accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, who was a resident of Saudi Arabia was a 17 year old individual who had never skied before the subject incident.  The Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she was unfamiliar with the necessary skills or inherent risks of skiing.

After disembarking from the chair lift on her first trip up to the top of the slope, the Plaintiff developed cold feet and was too scared to ski downhill. The Plaintiff asked a lift attendant if there was another way for her to reach the bottom of the hill without skiing. The Plaintiff was told that there was no other way down.

The Plaintiff alleged that she was therefore forced to assume the risk of skiing downhill on her own as the only means of returning to the bottom.

When the Plaintiff began to ski down, she turned to avoid another skier, lost control, and skidded or rolled into a wooded area beyond the edge of the trial and sustained injuries as a result.

In her lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that, by failing to provide an alternate means for her to come down the mountain under the circumstances presented, the resort was negligent and breached a duty of care that it owed to her as a business invitee.

The Defendant resort filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and asserted that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred under the Skier’s Responsibility Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102(c), given that the Plaintiff’s injuries were a direct result of one or more of the inherent risks of skiing for which she assumed the risk of injury.

In his Opinion, Judge Nanovic wrote that, as a matter of law, a person who participates in the sport of downhill skiing is charged with knowing and accepting the danger of injury from risks inherent and necessary to the sport, even if the skier is in fact ignorant of these risks and does not consent to assume those risks.

Yet, although the Plaintiff  in this matter was engaged in the recreational sport of downhill skiing at the time of her injury, the court found that the risk that a first time skier would vacillate and change her mind was beyond the scope of the Skier’s Responsibility Act.

The court noted that the circumstances presented in this case did not alter the otherwise applicable common law standards of reasonable care in determining whether the ski resort owed a duty to the Plaintiff after she reached the top of the mountain and told one of the resort’s employees that she was too scared to ski downhill and needed help getting back down.

The court also noted that, under the case presented, an issue of fact was raised for the jury to consider as to whether the Plaintiff had voluntarily engaged in the sport of downhill skiing at the time of her injury. To the contrary, it appeared to the court that the Plaintiff was compelled to attempt to ski down and, therefore, may not have voluntarily assumed the risk in the same sense of one who, freely by choice, purposefully elects to ski down the side of a snow covered mountain.

Given these issues raised, the court denied the request for summary judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 18, 2020).

Eastern Federal District Court of PA Rules That Snowtubing Activities Do Not Fall Under Skier's Responsibility Act

Does Pennsylvania's Skier's Responsibility Act apply to snowtubing?

In what appears to be a case of first impression, the court in the case of Amadeo v. Spring Mountain Adventures, Inc., No. 18-2472 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2019 Kenney, J.), denied a Defendant's motion for summary judgment and ruled that protections afforded to defendant ski resorts under Pennsylvania Skier’s Responsibility Act do not apply to snowtubing activities.

According to the short matter-of-fact Opinion of the court, the Plaintiff injured her ankle when her snow tube hit a barrier at the end of a run.

The defense filed a motion for summary judgment under Pennsylvania's Skier's Responsibility Act and argued that, under that Act, snowtubing activities carry inherent risks that a participant assumes when engaging in such activities.

The court here noted that no prior decisions had ruled that snowtubing activities fell under the ambit of the Act which is focused on downhill skiing activities.  The court in this Amadeo case predicted that, if faced with the issue, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would fall on the side that favors plaintiffs and would rule that snowtubing should be viewed as an "inherently benign" activity under Pennsylvania law.

As such, since the court found that the Skier's Responsibility Act did not support the granting of the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the motion was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Postscript:  According to this LINK to a page on the defendant's website, the defendant is no longer able to offer snowtubing activities at its location due to a change in insurance coverage, which coverage does not provide liability protection for snowtubing activities.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Skiing Accident Case Survives Summary Judgment

In the case of Kozlowski v. JFBB Ski Areas, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-353 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2019 Mariani, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of a Defendant in a case arising out of a skiing accident that occurred at the Big Boulder Ski Resort. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging a claim of negligence and a count in gross negligence/recklessness.

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that he was skiing at Big Boulder ski resort and, as it came to an intersection of trails, he followed tracks which led to an embankment at the edge of a catwalk. The Plaintiff additionally alleged that, as he skied down the embankment, he suddenly and unexpectedly collided with partially exposed snowmaking pipes which alleged could not be seen from a reasonable safe distance in the area where he was skiing. The Plaintiff alleges injuries as a result.

Before the court was a Motion for Summary Judgment by the Defendant asserting that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Pennsylvania Skier’s Responsibility Act, the common law construing that act, and the release found on Big Boulder’s ski lift ticket.

The court denied the motion on various grounds.

Relative to the defense claim that the Plaintiff’s negligence count was barred by the assumption of risk doctrine as bound under the Skier’s Responsibility Act, the court noted that the Defendant had not established, as a matter of law, that the risk at issue (colliding with hidden snowmaking pipes) is inherent in the sport of downhill skiing.

On the claims of gross negligence and/or recklessness, the court decided that judgment could not be entered on the current record as the case was not entirely free from doubt. As such, the court allowed this issue to go to the jury. 

Relative to the validity of the Release language contained on the Big Boulder lift ticket, the court noted that, since it had ruled that the question of gross negligence and/or recklessness could not be determined that this stayed the proceeding, the validity of the lift ticket release provision, and whether it applied to claims of gross negligence and recklessness, also could not be determined on the current record before the court. 

For these reasons, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Pennsylvania Skier's Responsibility Act Applies to Plaintiff Hurt While Standing in Line at Ski Lift

In the case of Borden v. Grossberger, No. 187-Civil-2019 (C.P. Monroe Co. Dec. 10, 2019 Harlacher-Sibum, J.), granted a Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in a snowboarding accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff asserted that she was injured when the minor Defendant, who was snowboarding at the time, struck the Plaintiff as she waited in line to board the ski lift. 

The Plaintiff filed suit against the minor, the parents of the minor, and the ski resort. 

The minor Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings alleging that the Plaintiff’s claims against him were barred by the Pennsylvania Skier’s Responsibility Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102(c). 

The court in this snowboarding case noted that previous appellate court decisions have held that the Pennsylvania Skier’s Responsibility Act applies equally to snowboarders. 

Also, from the perspective of the skier Plaintiff, Judge Harlacher Sibum also noted that the sport of downhill skiing to which the Pennsylvania Skier’s Responsibility Act is to be interpreted broadly and is not strictly limited to those times where a person is actually skiing downhill. Rather, the courts have held that other activities directly and necessarily incident to the act of downhill skiing, such as boarding a ski lift, riding a lift up the mountains, a lighting from the lift, and engaging in other skiing activities, all fall under the scope of the act. 

In this matter, the Plaintiff, who was standing at the base of a hill and waiting to get on a ski lift, was attempting to assert that she was not engaged in the sport of downhill skiing at the time she was struck by the snowboarder. 

The court ruled that the language of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, which confirmed that the Plaintiff was in line to board the ski lift, brought the Plaintiff’s case under the Act. The court noted that it would be “a tortured reading of the Complaint to reach the conclusion that Plaintiff was in the line for any other purpose.” 

Having determined that the Plaintiff was engaged in the sport of downhill skiing, the court continued its analysis under the Act and determined that the case law confirms that being struck by other skiers is an inherent risk of the sport of downhill skiing. 

 As such, Judge Harlacher Sibum held that the Pennsylvania Skier’s Responsibility Act applied and served to support a finding that the Plaintiff’s claims against the minor Plaintiff were barred by the assumption of risk doctrine as preserved under that Act. Accordingly, the court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Defendant snowboarder who allegedly crashed into the Plaintiff.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of his decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Hugh J. Gillespie of the Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania Law Offices of Lester G. Weinraub for bringing this case to my attention.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Favor of Ski Resort (Not Precedential)

In the case of Vu v. Ski Liberty Operating Corp., No. 18-1769 (3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2019 Chagares, Bibas, Sanchez, JJ.) (Op. by Chagares, J.)(Listed as "Not Precedential"), the court entered judgment in favor of a Defendant in a skiing accident case. 

The court ruled that, under the Skier’s Responsibility Act, ski resorts have no duty to protect skiers from the inherent risk of the sport.   The court noted that losing control and skiing off the side of a trail is an inherent risk of skiing.  Under the law, inherent risk need not be natural conditions on the ski slope.  

The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff failed to identify any particular industry standard that the Defendants violated.

As such, the court affirmed the entry of judgment in favor of the defense.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.  Attorney Beck is also the writer of the excellent Drug and Device Law blog which can be viewed HERE,