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.

Federal Court Parameters on Scope of Permissible Discovery of Prior Incidents Reviewed

In the case if Birl v. Ski Shawnee, Inc., No. 3:22-CV-1598 (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2023 Carlson, Mag. J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Compel discovery in a skiing accident case.

More specifically, the court found that a demand for the production of all documents and communications about all prior collision accidents on the Defendant’s property for over twenty (20) years was excessive.

However, the court also noted that a restriction of discovery to only the particular object that the Plaintiff collided with was also too narrow.

The court stated that judicial discretion on discovery issues is limited by valid claims of relevance and privilege. Relevance issues are to be tempered by principles of proportionality. Proportionality, in turn, is determined based upon temporal and topical aspects of the discovery dispute.

Magistrate Judge Carlson otherwise indicated that prior accidents are relevant if they occur under similar circumstances as presented in the pending case, and where such prior accidents are also relevant to the issue of notice on the part of the Defendant.

The court otherwise indicated that five (5) years is a common temporal limit on discovery.

In the end, the court granted the Plaintiff the right to discovery five (5) year records on all collision incidents.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision 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.

Source of Image:  Photo by Mati Mango on www.pexels.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.

ARTICLE: "Mixed Results in Recent Ski Resort Liability Cases" By Daniel E. Cummins

 

There's a saying -- "Skiing....the only sport where you spend an arm and a leg to break an arm and a leg."

Here is a LINK to my recent article entitled "Mixed Results in Recent Ski Resort Liability Cases" which was published in the December, 2020 edition of Counterpoint, the newsletter for the Pennsylvania Defense Institute.

If you wish to review any of the decisions noted in the article, please go to www.TortTalk.com and type the Plaintiff's name into the "Search This Blog" Box in the upper right hand corner and then click on the word "Search."  That will take you to the Tort Talk blog post on that case, in which you should find a link to the actual decision.

Source of Image:  www.stories.avvo.com

Judge Mariani of Federal Middle District Court Addresses Issues Regarding Punitive Damages Discovery

In the case of Kozlowski v. JFBB Ski Areas, Inc., No. 3:18-CV 353 (M.D. Pa. May 13, 2020 Mariani J.), the court addressed issues pertaining to punitive damages discovery in a skiing accident case. 

In this Opinion, the court ruled that a Plaintiff does not have to specifically pled punitive damages in order to seek such damages. The court also note that a Plaintiff is not required to produce evidence of the Defendant’s financial condition in order to pursue the punitive damages claim. Rather, the financial condition of a Defendant is but one factor in the punitive damages analysis. 

In this matter, Judge Mariani denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of financial evidence as the motion was found to be untimely under the discovery schedule previously set by the court. The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to show good cause for belated financial discovery. It was emphasized that the Plaintiff had previously agreed to a trial date without any mention for the need for additional discovery. 

The court noted that reopening discovery would prejudice the Defendant, who had already filed Motions In Limine with the court for purposes of trial. 

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

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).

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.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court To Review Duties Owed By Ski Resorts

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has granted allocatur in the case of Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc., No. 768 MAL 2018 (Pa. June 25, 2019) involving a snow tubing accident at the Roundtop Resort in York, PA. 

The court accepted all four issues presented for review, which included issues addressing (1) a trial court’s obligation to consider expert reports when ruling on an MSJ, (2) the sufficiency of expert reports, (3) the duties owed by a snow tubing facility (previously established in Tayar v. Camelback), (4) and whether evidence of industry standards is required to sustain a cause of action in recklessness/gross negligence.

Anyone wishing to review the Supreme Court's Order outlining the issues to be reviewed may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Paul Oven of the Moosic, PA office of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price for bringing this Order 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,

Release Language in Ski Waiver Form Upheld as Supporting Summary Judgment

In the case of Kibler v. Blue Knob Recreation, Inc., No. 903 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. April 19, 2018 Ford Elliot, P.J.E., Bowes, J.; Stabile, J., concurring) (Op. by Ford Elliot, P.J.E.), the court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment after finding that the Defendant’s release or waiver form was valid and enforceable in a downhill skiing accident case.  

The Plaintiff attempted to get around the waiver form he signed by asserting that his accident was caused when the Plaintiff attempted to ski over an area where there were wheel ruts left in the snow by an ATV used by a resort employee.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that wheel ruts left by a vehicle operated by the Defendant’s employees are an inherent risk of downhill skiing for which the Defendant ski resort had no duty to protect skiers.   The court additionally noted that tire tracks in snow do not amount to evidence of reckless conduct on the part of the ski resort so as to get around the terms of the release signed by the Plaintiff. 

Relative to the waiver signed by the Plaintiff, the court found that the release terms did not contravene law or public policy.  

The court additionally reaffirmed the well-settled principle of law that the alleged failure to read a release is not a defense.  

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

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.  

No Duty Owed For Inherent Risks Associated With Downhill Skiing

In the case of Cole v. Camelback Mountain Ski Resort, No. 3:16-CV-1959 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2017 Mariani, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss in a downhill skiing injury case.  

In so ruling, Judge Mariani noted that a ski resort owes no duty of care to a skier for any in inherent risk of downhill skiing.  The court noted that accidentally striking an object while skiing down a slope is an inherent of downhill skiing.   The exact nature of the objects struck is not material.  

The court also noted that the fact that the ski resort added padding to the object that the Plaintiff struck did not give rise to liability for a negligent undertaking.   To rule otherwise would deter voluntary safety efforts on the part of a ski resort.

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

 I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith and the writer of the Drug and Device Law blog for bringing this case to my attention.  

Release From Liability Form Upheld in Poconos Snow Tubing Case

In his recent decision in the case of Dunlap v. Davenport v. The Villas at Tree Tops and Fairway, PICS Case No. 14-0883 (Monroe Co. April 28, 2014 Williamson, J.), Judge David Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas upheld a release from liability form containing an exculpatory clause signed by a Plaintiff relative to the Plaintiff's participation in snow tubing at the Fernwood Hotel and Resort in the Poconos.  

The court found that the release form was a proper contract between the parties and that the Plaintiff was free to go snow tubing elsewhere or simply not go at all.  

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s contentions that the release form should be deemed to be unenforceable in that it had extremely small printing with all of the writing on a single page.  

The court additionally rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that there was no evidence that the Plaintiff had read and understood the release terms that protected the Defendant from liability arising out of the snow tubing activities.  

The court otherwise rejected an argument that the release form violated Pennsylvania public policy.  

Judge David Williamson
Monroe County

Overall, because the release form was found to be a valid contractual agreement between the parties, Judge Williamson granted the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the personal injury claim.  

The court additionally dismissed the husband’s loss of consortium claim as that claim was derivative of, and dependent upon, the wife’s personal injury claim.  

I do not have a copy of this one.  Anyone desiring a copy of this case may contact the Pennsylvania Instant Case Service of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly by calling 1-800-276-7427 and providing the above noted PICS Case No. along with a payment of a small fee.  

Source: "Case Digests," Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 2014).

Ski Resort's Release From Liability Upheld in Monroe County

In his recent December 6, 2012 decision, Judge Jonathan Mark of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas recently granted summary judgment in favor of a ski resort in the case of Freeman v. Camelback Ski Corp., PICS Case No. 13-0083 (C.P. Monroe Co. Dec. 6, 2012 Mark, J.).  

In this matter, the court ruled that the ski resort’s liability release and agreement not to sue for injuries resulting from the act of skiing or the use of the resort’s equipment or facilities contemplated and included the Plaintiff’s action of walking in ski boots across a pathway from the rental equipment building to the ski slopes.   As such, the court granted the Defendant’s ski resort’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  

Under the liability release form signed by the Plaintiff entitled “Rental Agreement and Agreement Not to Sue-PLEASE READ” was a clause stating that the signor understood and assumed the risk of skiing and agreed not to sue the Camelback Ski Resort for any injuries sustained as a result of skiing or using Camelback’s equipment or facility.  

The Plaintiff was allegedly injured while wearing ski boots and carrying skis when he left the rental office, walked across the courtyard, and slipped and fell on a snow/path depression in the walkway.  

If the parties’ dispute over the scope and extent of the liability release, the Plaintiff asserted that the release should only be deemed to apply to injuries and damages associated with the activities of skiing or snowboarding.   The Plaintiff also alleged that his fall on the walkway was an unexpected risk not specifically covered by the release. 

The court disagreed and found the path upon which the Plaintiff fell to be covered by the liability release.   The court noted that the this party was used for the purpose of getting the Plaintiff to the designated ski area, which was the purpose for which he had rented equipment, paid fees, and signed the release.   The court also found an inherent risk of skiing including the associated act of walking in ski boots to and from the rental equipment office to the slopes while walking over snow packed walkways.  

Based upon the above, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.  

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact the Pennsylvania Law Weekly’s Pennsylvania Instant Case Service at 1-800-276-7427 and providing the above-referenced PICS Case Number and paying a small fee.

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions,” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (30 PLW 103) (Jan. 29, 2013).  

PA Supreme Court Addresses Pre-Activity Releases

In its recent decision in the case of Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., Inc., No. 67 MAP 2010 (Pa. July 18, 2012 Todd, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether it is against public policy to release reckless behavior in a pre-injury exculpatory clause.

The Appellant, Camelback Ski Corporation, Inc., is a ski resort located in the Poconos.  Before permitting its customers to participate in snow tubing activities, Camelback requires each customer to sign a pre-printed release form.

In 2003, the Appellee was injured while engaging in snow tubing activities after having signed a release as required by the ski resort.  The injured party sustained multiple fractures in her right leg which were repaired by surgery.

The Superior Court had determined that the release at issue was valid only with respect to Camelback and not the ski resort's employee that was involved in the event, and relieved Camelback from liability for only negligent conduct.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the lower court's order in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Superior Court by concluding that the ski resort's employee was indeed covered by the Release.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order with respect to the finding that "releasing recklessness in a pre-injury release is against public policy."  In other words, the ski resort's release form attempting to release the resort and its employees for liability for reckless conduct was invalid.

Anyone wishing to review this decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., Inc. may click this LINK.  (Note also that there were two concurring and dissenting opinions which are not linked to here).

I send thanks to Attorney Paul Oven of the Moosic, PA office of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price and Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of Image: www.snowtubes.com

LOOK OUT!! - Claim by Injured Skier Against Reckless Fellow Skier Allowed to Proceed

While there have been a number of recent decisions limiting the rights of injured skiers to recover under Pennsylvania law, it appears that such claims will be allowed to proceed against a fellow skier where the injury results from the reckless acts of that other skier.

In a June 14, 2011 decision, Judge Richard P. Conaboy of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered an Opinion and Order in the case of Smith v. Demetria, et al., No. 3:11-CV-773 (M.D.Pa. June 14, 2011, Conaboy, J.) denying the motion to dismiss and allowing the tort and punitive damages claims to go forward in a skiing accident case.

In this matter, the Plaintiff, who was injured while skiing, filed a claim against a snowboarder alleging that the snowboarder was acting recklessly at the time of the incident.  It was alleged that the snowboarder was coming down the hill at approximately 35 mph and made no effort to avoid the Plaintiff prior to the impact.  Punitive damages were claimed.  The snowboarder filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.

In his memorandum, Judge Conaboy held that, under the facts before the court of a skier having been injured by another reckless skier, while the the Skier Responsibility Act may preclude a claim involving a collision between skiers as a result of ordinary negligence, the Act did not preclude claims against someone who skiing abnormally, recklessly, or out of control.

The Court also ruled that the punitive damages claim would be allowed beyond the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss stage as adequate facts had been alleged to support the filing of a claim for exemplary damages.

I thank the prevailing Plaintiff's Attorney, Stephen Seach, of Seach Law Offices in Drums, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.



Source of photo:   Image: Salvatore Vuono / FreeDigitalPhotos.net