Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc.

Brief Fact Summary.

Hardin sued Ski Venture, Inc. for negligence, seeking damages for injuries he suffered in a skiing accident. His theory of the case was that Ski Venture, Inc. was negligent based on the wetness of the snow on the trail and the placement of the snow guns. A jury found that Ski Venture, Inc. was not negligent. Hardin appealed, challenging the trial court’s jury instructions.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Jury instructions are viewed as a whole on review; district courts are vested with significant discretion in constructing the specific form and content of jury instructions; as long as the charge is accurate on the law and does not confuse or mislead the jury, it is not erroneous.

Facts.

Hardin was injured in a skiing accident. He sued Ski Venture, Inc., the ski resort owner, for negligence, seeking damages for the injuries he suffered. Hardin’s allegations of negligence pertained to Ski Venture’s snowmaking; specifically, he alleged that Ski Venture, Inc. was negligent based on the wetness of the snow on the trail and the placement of the snow guns. A jury found that Ski Venture, Inc. was not negligent. Hardin appealed, challenging the trial court’s jury instructions.

Issue.

Did the district court err in (1) failing to include two instructions on Hardin’s specific theory of the case (regarding wet snow and the direction of show guns), and (2) by instructing the jury, as a whole, with extraneous material that could have been confusing and with instructions that were weighted in Ski Venture’s favor.

Held.

No. The substance of Hardin’s case was adequately communicated to the jury, and the instructions, as a whole, were fair and balanced.

Dissent.

Justice Butzner

Judge Butzner argued that Hardin suffered prejudice because the district court failed to give Hardin’s profferred instruction on his theory of recovery.

Discussion.

The district court did not err err in (1) failing to include two instructions on Hardin’s specific theory of the case (regarding wet snow and the direction of show guns); neither side was granted the specificity that Hardin argued he was denied, and it is accuracy and not specificity that is the critical question regarding jury instructions.

The district court did not err (2) by instructing the jury, as a whole, with extraneous material that could have been confusing and with instructions that were weighted in Ski Venture’s favor; the instructions, taken as a whole, were accurate and balanced.