Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary.
Clover filed a negligence suit against Snowbird Ski Resort after an employee collided into her.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A ski area operator who fails to exercise ordinary care and eliminate hazards that could injure patrons is not immune under the Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute.
The statute should not be construed in a piecemeal fashion but as a comprehensive whole.
View Full Point of Law
Clover was injured at Snowbird Ski Resort (Snowbird) after an employee collided with her. Clover subsequently filed a negligence suit claiming that Snowbird negligently designed and maintained its ski slopes. The trial court dismissed Clover’s claims under the Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute.
Issue.
Whether a ski area operator who fails to exercise ordinary care and eliminate hazards that could injure patrons is immune under the Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute?
Held.
No. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Snowbird had knowledge that visitors regularly took a blind jump, that the blind jump could injure skiers below the jump, and Snowbird failed to eliminate the risk to those skiers.
Discussion.
A ski area operator who fails to exercise ordinary care and eliminate hazards that could injure patrons is not immune under the Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute.