Gwyn v. Loon Mountain Corporation, 350 F.3d 212; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23995
Posted: January 20, 2014 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Legal Case, New Hampshire, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Eileen Gwyn, Estate of Howard Gwyn, increased risk of harm, Loon Mountain, Loon Mountain Corporation, Loon Mountain Ski Area, Margaret Do, New Hampshire, ski area, Ski Safety Act, voluntarily assumed duty negligently performed Leave a commentTo Read an Analysis of this decision see: Plaintiff tries to hold ski area liable for exceeding the state ski statute, however, the court sees the flaws in the argument.
Gwyn v. Loon Mountain Corporation, 350 F.3d 212; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23995
Eileen Gwyn, on her own behalf, and as Executrix of the Estate of Howard Gwyn, and Margaret Do, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Loon Mountain Corporation, d/b/a Loon Mountain Ski Area, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 03-1047
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
350 F.3d 212; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23995
November 25, 2003, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Amended December 2, 3003.
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge.
Gwyn v. Loon Mt. Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9092 (D.N.H., 2002)
Gwyn v. Loon Mt. Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24625 (D.N.H., 2002)
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL: Kevin M. Leach with whom Nixon, Raiche, Manning, Casinghino & Leach, P.C. was on brief for appellants.
Thomas Quarles, Jr. with whom Margaret O’Brien, Matthew R. Johnson and Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A. were on brief for appellee.
JUDGES: Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Siler, * Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
* Of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
OPINION BY: BOUDIN
OPINION
[*214] BOUDIN, Chief Judge. In this tragic case, two individuals were killed and a third badly injured in a skiing accident in New Hampshire. The details are set forth in two very able opinions by the district court. Thus, we confine ourselves to an abbreviated description focused on the two primary issues raised on this appeal: one is an important question of statutory construction and the other a narrower issue turning upon the pleadings.
Howard and Eileen Gwyn, their daughter Margaret Do, and Margaret’s fiance Mark Goss went on a ski vacation in Lincoln, New Hampshire. On January 25, 1999, they spent the morning together skiing down [**2] easy trails at Loon Mountain Ski Area (“Loon”). Shortly before lunch, Howard, Margaret, and Mark–all very experienced skiers–left Eileen and rode the chairlift up to the Summit Lodge to ski down some more difficult trails. Unbeknownst to them, Loon had closed one of the trails (named “Triple Trouble”) the night before because of icy conditions, a closure noted on the trail board at the bottom of the mountain.
[*215] From the summit, it was possible to ski directly down a trail named Big Dipper from which, part way down, Triple Trouble branched off to the skier’s right. Or, from the summit, one could head right on a trail called Haulback, then take a left fork onto Cant Dog, and enter Big Dipper just above the point where Triple Trouble branched off to the right. At this branching off point from Big Dipper to Triple Trouble, Loon had posted a sign warning that Triple Trouble was closed. It had also placed a rope across the entrance to Triple Trouble.
From the summit, Howard led the group to the right down Haulback and then took a left turn onto Cant Dog. At the intersection of Cant Dog and Big Dipper–right above the closed Triple Trouble trail–Howard slipped on ice, slid under the rope [**3] blocking off Triple Trouble, and tumbled nine hundred feet down the icy slope. He suffered severe injuries resulting in his death a few days later. Margaret Do and Mark Goss saw Howard Gwyn fall, removed their skis, and attempted to walk down the closed trail to rescue him. Both fell, sliding hundreds of feet down Triple Trouble trail. Goss died. Margaret Do suffered severe injuries and frostbite but was rescued several hours later. In this diversity suit, Margaret Do and Eileen Gwyn (as executrix of Howard Gwyn’s estate and on her own behalf) sued Loon for breach of multiple common law and statutory duties. The district court granted Loon’s motion to dismiss the majority of claims under New Hampshire’s “Skiers, Ski Area, and Passenger Tramway Safety Act,” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 225-A:23 (2002) (“ski statute”). Two claims survived the motion to dismiss, but after discovery the district court granted summary judgment to Loon on both counts. Plaintiffs appealed, focusing attention on one statutory claim and one claim of common law negligence.
At the crux of this appeal is New Hampshire’s ski statute, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 225-A. In this [**4] statute several duties are placed on ski operators–maintaining trail boards, marking the difficulty of various slopes, making trail maps available to all skiers–and operators can be sued for violations of these statutory duties. § 225-A:23; Nutbrown v. Mt. Cranmore, Inc., 140 N.H. 675, 671 A.2d 548, 553 (N.H. 1996). At the same time, the statute places the risk of injury from dangers inherent in the sport of skiing on the skiers themselves, and bars all actions against ski operators for injuries caused by these dangers. 1 § 225-A:24; Nutbrown, 671 A.2d at 553. New Hampshire case law is slowly filling in the gaps but uncertainties remain.
1 [HN1] The statute provides that “each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts as a matter of law[] the dangers inherent in the sport, and to that extent may not maintain an action against the operator for any injuries which result from such inherent risks, dangers, or hazards.” § 225-A:24; see also Nutbrown, 671 A.2d at 553 (“By participating in the sport of skiing, a skier assumes this inherent risk and may not recover against a ski area operator for resulting injuries.”).
[**5] Here, most of the counts and theories pressed by plaintiffs at the start are no longer in issue, but two major claims remain open on this appeal. The first is that Loon did not comply with a statutory duty relating to marking closed trails. Under the ski statute, operators are not required to close a trail because of hazardous conditions, but if they do close a trail they must mark “the beginning of, and designated access points to” the closed trail with a sign, § 225-A:23 (III)(b), and note the closure on a permanent trail board at the base of the mountain, § 225-A:23 (II)(a). Here, it is undisputed that Loon properly [*216] noted the closure on the trail board and properly marked “the beginning” of Triple Trouble at the point that it branched off Big Dipper.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs say that a closed sign for Triple Trouble was also required by the statute at the uphill juncture where Cant Dog forked off Haulback–a point where a sign pointed the way to Big Dipper and Triple Trouble. This, they say, was itself an “access point” to Triple Trouble. Their causation theory is less clear: the implication is that such an early warning of a closed trail further downhill might have made [**6] Howard Gwyn decide to lead the group straight down Haulback instead of taking Cant Dog so they could avoid the entire region around the closed trail.
The district court ruled as a matter of law that “access points” as used in the New Hampshire statute referred to points of direct entry onto a trail, and did not include points above the start of the closed trail. Thus, the start of Cant Dog might conceivably be treated as an access point to Big Dipper since the former merged into the latter; once on Cant Dog, entry onto Big Dipper was inevitable. By contrast, nothing compelled one who took the fork to Big Dipper necessarily to take the fork from Big Dipper onto Triple Trouble.
We agree readily with the district court’s reading of the statute. True, as a matter of dictionary definition a remote fork to an intermediate trail that can lead eventually to the closed trail could be described as a way to “access” the later trail; but on this theory the summit itself would be an access point to every connected trail on the mountain below. Indeed, on plaintiffs’ reading, warning signs might have to be posted at a variety of different points wherever existing trail signs indicated that [**7] the closed trail could be reached somewhere downhill. Conceivably, plaintiffs’ position could also require ski operators to construct such directional signs even if they did not already exist in order to mark every downhill closure.
It would not be literally impossible to comply with such requirements–apparently some ski slopes do so mark their closed trails, at least where existing signs mention the trails–but it could involve fairly complex compliance measures. In fact, the Loon trail map indicates that from some trails one could reach nearly 30 different trails below–some of them through open intermediate trails branching off into other open forks. The simplicity of the statute’s requirements argues against an interpretation requiring ski operators to mark every one of those possibilities, and this interpretation is unnecessary to carry out what we perceive to be the rationale of the warning requirement.
In our view, the statute aims to give the skier warning of a trail closure at any point where the skier might otherwise commit himself to traverse the closed trail. This is a complete scheme of protection giving the skier both a comprehensive overview of all closures on the [**8] base trailboard, and specific notice of each closure at any point on the mountain where the skier has a last chance to avoid the closed trail.
This reading may leave some open issues, but it forecloses plaintiffs’ central claim in this case. Here, the plaintiffs argue that a sign should have been placed at the Haulback-Cant Dog junction, since Cant Dog led onto Big Dipper which in turn led onto Triple Trouble. But a skier does not commit himself to taking Triple Trouble merely by turning left onto Cant Dog. Big Dipper was an open trail which a skier could continue down without branching off onto Triple Trouble, so no warning sign as to Triple Trouble was required by [*217] the statute at the Haulback- Cant Dog fork, even though one could have been voluntarily provided.
The second claim on appeal is that the district court should not have rejected an alternative theory of the plaintiffs having nothing to do with notice. The plaintiffs said that the defendant had placed the rope across Triple Trouble somewhat below the entrance itself and that the placement was negligent because it could lure a skier closer to the icy entrance than one would go otherwise. Admittedly, there was no duty to [**9] use any closing rope at all (the statute made the signs sufficient) but the plaintiffs argue that a voluntarily assumed duty negligently performed is not immunized by the statute.
There are obvious risks in penalizing efforts to provide help or care beyond an existing duty, but the common law rule sometimes permits a claim for negligent performance of a voluntary act where the negligence “increases the risk” of harm, or harm is caused by the victim’s “reliance upon the undertaking” to provide help or care. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965); see also Prosser & Keaton on Torts 378-82 (5th ed. 1984). The New Hampshire Supreme Court has not decided how far this doctrine may apply in the face of the state statute providing protection to ski operators. See Rayeski v. Gunstock Area/Gunstock Area Comm’n, 146 N.H. 495, 776 A.2d 1265, 1269 (N.H. 2001).
The district court did not attempt to answer this question. It rested its rejection of such a claim in this case on the fact that the plaintiffs had not articulated any plausible causal connection between the placement of the rope and Howard Gwyn’s fall. As the district court [**10] said:
[The] complaint is devoid of allegations suggesting that defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care to perform the identified undertakings created the icy area where the falls took place, exacerbated an already dangerous situation, caused Howard Gwyn and Do to enter an area they would not have entered absent the undertakings, or caused Howard Gwyn and Do to suffer worse injuries than they would have suffered absent the undertakings.
We have read the plaintiffs’ appellate briefs with care and no persuasive answer to this summary appears.
The problem for the plaintiffs is that Howard Gwyn evidently slipped on an ice patch on Big Dipper, and [HN2] an icy and dangerous open slope is an inherent risk of skiing that the plaintiffs assumed as a matter of law. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 225-A:24(I); Nutbrown, 671 A.2d at 553-54 (citing Fetzner v. Jiminy Peak, The Mountain Resort, 1995 Mass. App. Div. 55, 1995 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 30, No. 94WAD16, 1995 WL 263916, at *2 (Mass. Dist. Ct. May 1, 1995) (slipping on ice is an inherent risk of skiing)). The only duty Loon voluntarily undertook–placing a rope across the trail–put the plaintiffs in no worse a position than [**11] they would have been without the rope. One can think of circumstances where a badly placed rope would cause or contribute to an accident but this simply is not such a case.
Three remaining claims can be dealt with more swiftly. First, plaintiffs say that as read by the district court (and now by this court), the New Hampshire statute violates two provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution: the right to a remedy and the equal protection of the laws. N.H. Const. part I, arts. 2, 12, 14. The claim is that the district court’s interpretation deprives the plaintiffs of their constitutionally guaranteed rights without giving them a sufficient quid pro quo of a prior warning of the danger. This argument may be forfeited since not raised [*218] below. Brigham v. Sun Life of Canada, 317 F.3d 72, 85 (1st Cir. 2003).
In any event the New Hampshire Supreme Court has already concluded that the obligations that the ski statute places on ski operators provide a sufficient quid pro quo for the statutory restriction on skiers’ legal remedies. Nutbrown, 671 A.2d at 552. While the “access points” issue was not considered in Nutbrown, this slight wrinkle would [**12] not be likely to alter the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s assessment. No further argument based on New Hampshire constitutional law is sufficiently developed to merit consideration. See Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 142 F.3d 26, 43 (1st Cir. 1998).
Second, plaintiffs say that the statutory reading of the access points language and the voluntary assumption issue present open questions of New Hampshire law that should be certified to the state court. No such request was made in the district court, which is ordinarily conclusive save in rare circumstances such as public policy concerns, e.g., Pyle v. S. Hadley Sch. Comm., 55 F.3d 20, 22 (1st Cir. 1995). In any event, the access points issue is too straightforward to deserve certification and the voluntary assumption claim has been resolved not on the basis of statutory preemption but simply on the pleadings and facts of this case.
Third, plaintiffs say that the district court erred by denying them the chance to amend their complaint for the second time (one earlier amendment had been made) two months after the deadline set by the district court’s scheduling order. The motion [**13] to amend was denied by the district court for failure to make any effort to satisfy the good cause requirement for amendments after the scheduling order deadline, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1), and also the disregard of Local Rule 15.1’s further requirements (e.g., attaching all relevant documents and explaining why the change had not been made before). D.N.H. R. 15.1.
On appeal, the plaintiffs say only that the district court erred by applying federal standards for amending pleadings instead of the supposedly more liberal amendment rules applicable in New Hampshire state courts. [HN3] But if anything comprises “procedural” rules exempt from the Erie doctrine, Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188, 58 S. Ct. 817 (1938), it is the standards for such routine issues as the granting or denial of extensions of time, leave to amend, and similar housekeeping concerns. [HN4] The outcome determinative test relied upon by plaintiffs has been limited, see Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 471, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8, 85 S. Ct. 1136 (1965), and has no application to a clearly procedural matter governed by explicit federal procedural rules.
[**14] This is a sad case but, despite the ingenuity and energy of plaintiffs’ counsel, it is not a close one, given the limitations imposed by state policy. It was handled with care and competence by the district court, and we might have said less but for a desire to make clear that plaintiffs’ arguments have been considered with respect.
Affirmed.
WordPress Tags: Gwyn,Loon,Mountain,Corporation,LEXIS,Executrix,Estate,Howard,Margaret,Plaintiffs,Appellants,Area,Defendant,Appellee,STATES,COURT,APPEALS,CIRCUIT,November,SUBSEQUENT,HISTORY,December,PRIOR,APPEAL,FROM,DISTRICT,HAMPSHIRE,Paul,Barbadoro,Judge,Corp,Dist,DISPOSITION,COUNSEL,Kevin,Leach,Nixon,Raiche,Casinghino,Thomas,Quarles,Brien,Matthew,Johnson,Devine,Millimet,Branch,JUDGES,Boudin,Chief,Siler,Senior,Lynch,Sixth,designation,OPINION,individuals,accident,opinions,Thus,description,construction,daughter,Mark,Goss,vacation,Lincoln,January,Summit,Lodge,Unbeknownst,Triple,Trouble,closure,Dipper,Haulback,Cant,intersection,feet,injuries,death,Both,hours,duties,Skiers,Passenger,Tramway,Stat,statute,discovery,judgment,attention,negligence,crux,operators,violations,Nutbrown,injury,dangers,uncertainties,person,extent,action,operator,Here,theories,Under,juncture,causation,theory,implication,region,True,dictionary,definition,requirements,compliance,fact,interpretation,possibilities,rationale,requirement,protection,overview,closures,junction,placement,efforts,performance,victim,reliance,Restatement,Second,Torts,Prosser,Keaton,Supreme,doctrine,Rayeski,Gunstock,Comm,rejection,connection,complaint,allegations,failure,undertakings,situation,Fetzner,Jiminy,Peak,Resort,Mass,Three,Constitution,laws,Const,arts,danger,argument,Brigham,Life,Canada,event,obligations,restriction,Andover,assumption,policy,Pyle,Hadley,certification,basis,preemption,Third,amendment,deadline,effort,amendments,Local,Rule,Erie,Tompkins,denial,extensions,outcome,Hanna,Plumer,energy,limitations,competence,arguments,behalf,whom,upon,pleadings,skier,himself,quid
New Hampshire Skiers, Ski Area and Passenger Tramway Safety Act
Posted: July 22, 2013 Filed under: New Hampshire, Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding, State | Tags: New Hampshire, New Hampshire Ski Area Safety Act, ski area, Ski Resort, Ski Safety Act, Skier, Snowboarder 2 CommentsNew Hampshire Skiers, Ski Area and Passenger Tramway Safety Act
NEW HAMPSHIRE REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED
TITLE XIX Public Recreation
CHAPTER 225-A Skiers, Ski Area and Passenger Tramway Safety
Go To New Hampshire Statutes Archive Directory
225-A:1 Declaration of Policy. 3
225-A:1-a Administratively Attached. 5
225-A:3 Passenger Tramway Safety Board. 8
225-A:3-a Passenger Tramway Safety Board. 8
225-A:9 Declaratory Judgment. 12
225-A:9-a Declaratory Judgment. 12
225-A:10-a Review of Plans and Specifications. 13
225-A:11 Operator to Pay Certain Costs. 13
225-A:12 Inspection Reports. 13
225-A:14 Registration Required. 14
225-A:15 Application for Registration. 15
225-A:18-a Emergency Shut-Down. 17
225-A:19-a Operation Forbidden. 19
225-A:23 Responsibilities of the Ski Area Operator. 21
225-A:24 Responsibilities of Skiers and Passengers. 24
225-A:25 Insurance; Limitations. 29
225-A:1 Declaration of Policy.
The state of New Hampshire finds that the sports of skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, and snowshoeing are practiced by a large number of citizens of the state of New Hampshire, and also that skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, and snowshoeing attract to the state of New Hampshire large numbers of nonresidents significantly contributing to the economy of New Hampshire. Therefore, it shall be the policy of the state of New Hampshire to protect its citizens and visitors from unnecessary mechanical hazards in the operation of ski tows, lifts, nordic ski jumps and passenger tramways, to ensure that proper design and construction are used, that board accepted safety devices and sufficient personnel are provided for, and that periodic inspections and adjustments are made which are deemed essential to the safe operation of ski tows, ski lifts, nordic ski jumps and passenger tramways. The primary responsibility for operation, construction, maintenance and inspection rests with the operators of such passenger tramway devices. The state, through its passenger tramway safety board, as hereinafter provided, shall register all ski lift devices and nordic ski jumps, establish reasonable standards of design and operational practices, and make such independent inspections as may be necessary in carrying out this policy. Further, it shall be the policy of the state of New Hampshire to define the primary areas of responsibility of skiers and other users of alpine (downhill) and nordic (cross country and nordic ski jumps) areas, recognizing that the sport of skiing and other ski area activities involve risks and hazards which must be assumed as a matter of law by those engaging in such activities, regardless of all safety measures taken by the ski area operators.
225-A:1-a Administratively Attached.
The passenger tramway safety board shall be an administratively attached agency, under RSA 21-G:10, to the department of safety.
225-A:2 Definitions.
In this chapter:
“Board” means the passenger tramway safety board.
“Department” means the department of safety.
“Industry” means the activities of all those persons in the state who own or control the operation of ski areas.
“Nordic ski jump” means a facility constructed for the purpose of nordic ski jumping and built in accordance with appropriate standards and guidelines, and any facilities that are associated with the use or viewing of such a facility.
“Passenger” means any person, including skiers, while being transported or conveyed by a passenger tramway, or while waiting in the immediate vicinity for such transportation or conveyance, or while moving away from the disembarkation or unloading point of a passenger tramway to clear the way for the following passengers, or while in the act of boarding or embarking upon or disembarking from a passenger tramway.
“Passenger tramway” means a device used to transport passengers uphill on skis or other winter sports devices, or in cars on tracks or suspended in the air, by the use of steel cables, chains or belts or by ropes, and usually supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans. The term passenger tramway shall include the following:
Two-car aerial passenger tramway, a device used to transport passengers in 2 open or enclosed cars attached to, and suspended from, a moving wire rope, or attached to a moving wire rope and supported on a standing wire rope, or similar devices.
Multi-car aerial passenger tramway, a device used to transport passengers in open or enclosed cars attached to, and suspended from, a moving wire rope, or attached to a moving wire rope and supported on a standing wire rope, or similar devices.
“Conveyor” means a class of outdoor transportation wherein skiers or passengers are transported uphill on a flexible moving element such as a conveyor belt.
Chair lift, a type of transportation on which passengers are carried on chairs suspended in the air and attached to a moving cable, chain or link belt supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans, or similar devices.
J bar, T bar or platter pull, so-called, and similar types of devices are means of transportation which pull skiers riding on skis by means of an attachment to a main overhead cable supported by trestles or towers with one or more spans.
Rope tow, a type of transportation which pulls the skier riding on skis as the skier grasps the rope manually, or similar devices.
Wire rope tow means a type of transportation by which skiers are pulled on skis while manually gripping a handle attached to a wire hauling cable. The hauling cable is maintained at a constant height range between the loading and unloading points, and there is only one span with no intermediate towers.
“Ski area operator” means a person who owns or controls the operation of a ski area. The word “operator” shall include the state or any political subdivision. An operator of a passenger tramway shall be deemed not to be operating a common carrier. Ski area operator is included in the term “operator” as used in this chapter.
“Ski areas” means all passenger tramways and all designated alpine and nordic trails, slopes, freestyle terrain, tubing terrain, and nordic ski jumps under the control of the alpine and nordic ski area operator and any other areas under the operator’s control open to the public for winter sports recreation or competition.
“Skier” means a person utilizing the ski area under the control of a ski area operator for ski, snowboard, and snow tube recreation and competition.
“Tubing terrain” means areas designated for sliding on inflatable tubes or other similar devices down a prepared course or lanes at a ski area.
“Winter sports” means the use of skis, snowboards, snow tubes, snowshoes, and any device being utilized by a disabled or adaptive participant for winter recreation or competition.
225-A:3 Passenger Tramway Safety Board.
[Repealed 1987, 124:26, IV, eff. July 1, 1987.]
225-A:3-a Passenger Tramway Safety Board.
There shall be a passenger tramway safety board of 4 appointive members. The appointive members shall be appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the council, from persons representing the following interests: one member who operates a “surface lift” as described in RSA 225-A:2, I(e)-(g) only and one member from the cable and other passenger carrying devices industry, and in making such appointments consideration shall be given to recommendations made by members of the industry, so that both the devices which pull skiers riding on skis and the devices which transport passengers in cars or chairs shall have proper representation; one member to represent the public at large; and one member to represent insurance companies which engage in insuring passenger tramway operations, and in appointing such member consideration shall be given to recommendations made by such insurance companies. The authority of such board shall not extend to any other matter relative to the operation of a ski area.
225-A:4 Term of Office.
[Repealed 1987, 124:26, IV, eff. July 1, 1987.]
225-A:4-a Term of Office.
Of the first appointments under this section one member shall be appointed for a term of one year, one for a term of 2 years, one for a term of 3 years and one for a term of 4 years, and until their successors are appointed and qualified, and thereafter each of the appointed members shall be appointed for a term of 4 years and until his successor is appointed and qualified. Vacancies in the board shall be filled for the unexpired term.
225-A:5 Removal.
[Repealed 1987, 124:26, IV, eff. July 1, 1987.]
225-A:5-a Removal.
The appointive members of the board may only be removed from office as provided in RSA 4:1.
225-A:6 Compensation.
[Repealed 1987, 124:26, IV, eff. July 1, 1987.]
225-A:6-a Compensation.
The appointive members of the board shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses incurred in official duties.
225-A:7 Records.
[Repealed 1987, 124:26, IV, eff. July 1, 1987.]
225-A:7-a Records.
The department shall provide the board with such office and clerical assistance as may be necessary to carry on the work of the board, in accordance with RSA 225-A:1-a. The department shall also preserve the records, codes, inspection reports, and business records of the board.
225-A:8 Rulemaking.
The board with the approval of the commissioner of safety shall adopt, under RSA 541-A, rules after public hearing, relating to public safety in the construction, operation and maintenance of passenger tramways. The rules shall be in accordance with established standards, if any, and shall not be discriminatory in their application to operators of passenger tramways. The board shall also give notice of any public hearing under RSA 541-A for such rules by first class mail to each registered operator at least 14 days before the hearing.
225-A:9 Declaratory Judgment.
[Repealed 1987, 124:26, IV, eff. July 1, 1987.]
225-A:9-a Declaratory Judgment.
The validity or reasonableness of any rule adopted by the board may be judicially determined upon a petition to the superior court for declaratory judgment, brought within 30 days after the effective date of such rule. The court shall hear the petition and render a declaratory judgment only when it appears that the rule, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs or threatens to interfere with or impair the legal rights and privileges of the petitioner. In rendering judgment the court shall give effect to any pertinent constitutional limitations upon the powers of the board, the limits of the authority and jurisdiction of the board as conferred under this chapter, and the procedural requirements of this chapter.
225-A:10 Inspections.
The department may make such inspection of the construction, operation and maintenance of passenger tramways as the board may reasonably require. The department may, at its own expense, employ other qualified engineers to make such inspections.
225-A:10-a Review of Plans and Specifications.
Prior to the construction of a new, or the alteration of an existing, passenger tramway, the operator or prospective operator shall submit plans and specifications to the department. The department may make recommendations relative to safety of the layout and equipment, but such recommendation shall not relieve the operator or prospective operator of his primary responsibility as set forth in RSA 225-A:1.
225-A:11 Operator to Pay Certain Costs.
[Repealed 1973, 52:5, eff. May 23, 1973.]
225-A:12 Inspection Reports.
If, as the result of an inspection, it is found that a violation of the board’s rules, regulations or code exists, or a condition in passenger tramway construction, operation or maintenance exists endangering the safety of the public, an immediate report shall be made to the board for appropriate investigation and order.
225-A:13 Complaints.
Any person may make written complaint to the board setting forth any thing or act claimed to be done or omitted to be done by any registered operator which is alleged to be in violation of any rule, regulation or code adopted by the board, or setting forth any condition in passenger tramway construction, operation or maintenance which is alleged to endanger the safety of the public. Thereupon the board shall cause a copy of said complaint to be forwarded to the registered operator complained of, which may be accompanied by an order requiring that the matters complained of be answered in writing within a time to be specified by the board. The board may investigate the matter complained of if it shall appear to the board that there are reasonable grounds therefor.
225-A:14 Registration Required.
No passenger tramway shall be operated in this state unless the operator thereof was registered by the board.
225-A:15 Application for Registration.
On or before November 1 of each year every operator of a passenger tramway shall apply to the board, on forms prepared by it, for registration hereunder. The application shall contain such information as the board may reasonably require.
225-A:16 Fees.
The application for registration shall be accompanied by the applicable annual fees to cover the costs of administering this chapter. The fees for registration shall be set by the board by rule adopted pursuant to RSA 541-A.
225-A:17 Registration.
The board, if satisfied with the facts stated in the application, shall issue a registration certificate to the operator. Each registration shall expire on October 31 next following the day of its issue.
225-A:18 Fees.
All fees collected by the board hereunder shall be credited to the special appropriation for the department to be expended for purposes of this chapter.
225-A:18-a Emergency Shut-Down.
When facts are presented to the board, or to any member thereof, tending to show that an unreasonable hazard exists in the continued operation of a tramway, the board or member, after such verification of said facts as is practical under the circumstances and consistent with the public safety, may, by an emergency order require the operator of said tramway forthwith to cease using the same for the transportation of passengers. Such emergency order shall be in writing and notice thereof may be served by any person upon the operator or his agent immediately in control of said tramway by a true and attested copy of such order, the return of such service to be shown by an affidavit on the back thereof. Such emergency order shall be effective for a period not to exceed 48 hours from the time of service. Immediately after the issuance of an emergency order hereunder, the board shall conduct an investigation into the facts of the case as contemplated in RSA 225-A:19, and shall take such action under said RSA 225-A:19 as may be appropriate.
225-A:19 Orders.
If, after investigation, the commissioner of safety or the board finds that a violation of any of the rules exists, or that there is a condition in passenger tramway construction, operation or maintenance endangering the safety of the public, either the commissioner of safety or the board shall forthwith issue a written order setting forth his or its findings, the corrective action to be taken, and fixing a reasonable time for compliance therewith. Such order shall be served upon the operator involved by registered mail, and shall become final, unless the operator shall apply to the board for a hearing in the manner hereinafter provided.
225-A:19-a Operation Forbidden.
If in any such case the commissioner of safety or the board is of the opinion that the public safety would be endangered by the use of the tramway for the transportation of passengers prior to the taking of some or all of such corrective action, he or it shall so state in said order, and shall require in said order that the tramway shall not be so used until specified corrective action shall have been taken. From and after receipt of the order by the operator said tramway shall not be used for the transportation of passengers without the approval of the commissioner of safety or the board. Application for a hearing before the board shall not have the effect of suspending said order. Operation of the tramway following receipt of such order may be enjoined by the superior court.
225-A:20 Hearing.
Any such operator, who is aggrieved by any such order, may, within 10 days after the service of such order upon him as hereinbefore provided, apply to the board for a review of such order. It shall be the duty of the board to hear the same at the earliest convenient day. At such hearing the operator shall have the right to be heard personally or by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses appearing against him, and to produce evidence in his own behalf. After such hearing, the board shall report its findings in writing to the commissioner of safety and make such order as the facts may require.
225-A:21 Appeal.
Any such operator, who is aggrieved by any such post-hearing order of the board, may, within 14 days after the entry thereof, appeal therefrom to the superior court. No such appeal shall suspend the operation of the order made by the board; provided that the superior court may suspend the order of the board pending the determination of such appeal whenever, in the opinion of the court, justice may require such suspension. The superior court shall hear such appeal at the earliest convenient day and shall make such decree as justice may require.
225-A:23 Responsibilities of the Ski Area Operator.
It shall be the responsibility of the operator to maintain the following signs and designations:
General Designations. The following color code is hereby established:
Green circle: On area’s easiest trails and slopes.
Black diamond: On area’s most difficult trails and slopes.
Blue square: On area’s trails and slopes that fall between the green circle and black diamond designation.
Yellow triangle with red exclamation point inside with a red band around the triangle: Extrahazardous.
Border around a black figure in the shape of a skier inside with a band running diagonally across the sign with the word “closed” beneath the emblem: Trail or slope closed.
Orange oval: On area’s designated freestyle terrain without respect to its degree of difficulty.
Base Area; Information to Skiers and Passengers. (a) A trail board shall be maintained at a prominent location listing the ski area’s network of ski trails, slopes, tubing terrain, and designated freestyle terrain in accordance with the aforementioned color code and containing a key to the code in accordance with the above designations; said trail board shall further designate which trails, slopes, and snow tube terrain are open or closed.
(b) The ski area operator shall warn skiers and passengers by use of the trail board, if applicable, that snow grooming or snow making operations are routinely in progress on the slopes and trails serviced by each tramway.
(c) A map shall be available at all ski areas to all skiers and passengers indicating the system of ski trails, slopes, tubing terrain, and designated freestyle terrain in accordance with the color code in paragraph I.
Ski Trails and Slopes; Information and Warning to Skiers and Other Persons. (a) The operator shall mark the beginning of each alpine and nordic ski trail or slope with the appropriate symbol for that particular trail’s or slope’s degree of difficulty in accordance with RSA 225-A:23, I.
(b) The beginning of each alpine ski trail or slope is defined as the highest point of the trail or slope. Lower trail junctions and intersections may be marked with a degree of difficulty symbol.
(c) The operator shall mark the beginning of, and designated access points to, each alpine trail or slope that is closed with a sign in accordance with RSA 225-A:23, I(e). For purposes of this subparagraph, “designated access points” means the beginning of a trail, slope, or any point where an open trail crosses or intersects the closed trail as shown on the ski area’s trail board and trail map.
(d) The operator shall mark the beginning of and designated access points to terrain with the appropriate symbol in accordance with RSA 225-A:23, I(f), which sign shall warn the skier that the use of the terrain is at the skier’s own risk. Further, a sign shall be placed at each lift depicting the symbols in RSA 225-A:23, I(a)-(f) describing the trail or slope that the skier may encounter by utilizing such lift.
Nordic Ski Jumps. The operator shall provide a sign in a prominent location at or near the nordic ski jump facility, which sign shall warn the ski jumper that the use of the nordic ski jump is entirely at the ski jumper’s own risk. Further, the ski area operator shall be responsible for the design, construction, and structural maintenance of all nordic ski jumps.
225-A:24 Responsibilities of Skiers and Passengers.
It is hereby recognized that, regardless of all safety measures which may be taken by the ski area operator, skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, and snowshoeing as sports, and the use of passenger tramways associated therewith may be hazardous to the skiers or passengers. Therefore:
Each person who participates in the sport of skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, and snowshoeing accepts as a matter of law, the dangers inherent in the sport, and to that extent may not maintain an action against the operator for any injuries which result from such inherent risks, dangers, or hazards. The categories of such risks, hazards, or dangers which the skier or passenger assumes as a matter of law include but are not limited to the following: variations in terrain, surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots; rocks, trees, stumps and other forms of forest growth or debris; terrain, lift towers, and components thereof (all of the foregoing whether above or below snow surface); pole lines and plainly marked or visible snow making equipment; collisions with other skiers or other persons or with any of the categories included in this paragraph.
Each skier and passenger shall have the sole responsibility for knowing the range of his or her own ability to negotiate any slope, trail, terrain, or passenger tramway. Any passenger who boards such tramway shall be presumed to have sufficient knowledge, abilities, and physical dexterity to negotiate the lift, and no liability shall attach to any operator or attendant for failure to instruct persons on the use thereof.
Each skier or passenger shall conduct himself or herself, within the limits of his or her own ability, maintain control of his or her speed and course at all times both on the ground and in the air, while skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, and snowshoeing heed all posted warnings, and refrain from acting in a manner which may cause or contribute to the injury of himself, herself, or others.
Each passenger shall be the sole judge of his ability to negotiate any uphill track, and no action shall be maintained against any operator by reason of the condition of said track unless the board, upon appropriate evidence furnished to it, makes a finding that the condition of the track, at the time and place of an accident, did not meet the board’s requirements, provided however, that the ski area operator shall have had notice, prior to the accident, of the board’s requirements the violation of which is claimed to be the basis for any action by the passenger.
No skier, passenger or other person shall:
Embark or disembark upon a passenger tramway except at designated areas.
Throw or drop any object while riding on a passenger tramway nor do any act or thing which shall interfere with the running of said tramway.
Engage in any type of conduct which will contribute to cause injury to any other person nor shall he willfully place any object in the uphill ski track which may cause another to fall, while riding in a passenger tramway.
Ski or otherwise use a slope or trail which has been designated “closed” by the operator without written permission of said operator or designee.
Remove, alter, deface or destroy any sign or notice placed in the ski area or on the trail board by the operator.
Cross the uphill track of a J bar, T bar, rope tow, wire rope, or similar device except at locations approved by the board.
Ski or otherwise access terrain outside open and designated ski trails and slopes or beyond ski area boundaries without written permission of said operator or designee.
225-A:25 Insurance; Limitations.
Unless an operator of a passenger tramway is in violation of this chapter or the rules of the board, which violation is causal of the injury complained of, no action shall lie against any operator by any passenger or his or her representative; this prohibition shall not, however, prevent the maintenance of an action against an operator for negligent operation, construction, or maintenance of the passenger tramway itself.
Except as limited by paragraph III, each operator of a passenger tramway shall maintain liability insurance with limits of not less than $300,000 per accident.
The requirements of paragraph II shall not apply to an operator of a passenger tramway which is not open to the general public and operated without charge to users. Nonprofit ski clubs, outing clubs, or other similar organizations, which are operators of rope or wire rope tows shall also be excepted from the requirements of paragraph II if the organization’s bylaws so provide, each member of the organization is provided with a copy of such bylaws, and use of the rope or wire rope tows operated by the organization is restricted to members of that organization. This paragraph shall not relieve the state or any political subdivision operating a rope or wire rope tow from the requirement of maintaining liability insurance in accordance with paragraph II.
No action shall be maintained against any operator for injuries to any skier or passenger unless the same is commenced within 2 years from the time of injury provided, however, that as a condition precedent thereof the operator shall be notified by certified return receipt mail within 90 days of said injury. The venue of any action against an operator shall be in the county where the ski area is located and not otherwise.
No ski area operator shall be held responsible for ensuring the safety of, or for damages including injury or death resulting to, skiers or other persons who utilize the facilities of a ski area to access terrain outside open and designated ski trails. Ski areas shall not be liable for damages, including injury or death, to persons who venture beyond such open and designated ski trails.
A ski area operator owes no duty to anyone who trespasses on the ski area property.
225-A:26 Penalty.
Any person convicted of operating a passenger tramway without having been registered by the board, or violating this chapter or rules of the board shall be guilty of a violation if a natural person, or guilty of a misdemeanor if any other person. Any operator who operates after his registration has been suspended by the board, shall be guilty of a violation for each day of illegal operation.
227:14 Reduced Rates.
All season passes, including those for different age groups or military service, established by the department for the specific use of the winter facilities at Cannon Mountain aerial tramway and ski area shall be made available to any resident of this state at a 25 percent discount. For the purposes of this section, “resident of this state” means a person whose domicile is in this state. To qualify for the discount, a resident shall provide proof of residency and purchase the pass prior to December 15 of the year in which the pass becomes effective. Proof of residency shall include a state issued driver’s license; a state issued I.D. card with a photograph or information including name, sex, date of birth, height, weight and color of eyes; a United States passport; an affidavit certifying residency from the municipal clerk of the purchasers’ town or city of residence; or, for a person less than 18 years of age, proof of a parent’s or guardian’s residency provided by the resident parent or guardian. The commissioner of the department of resources and economic development shall make quarterly reports on season passes issued under this section to the senate president, the speaker of the house of representatives, and the governor and council.
New Hampshire Sales Representative
Posted: March 17, 2013 Filed under: New Hampshire | Tags: Commission (remuneration), Contract, IC, Independent Sales Rep, Rep, Sales, STATUTES Leave a commentNEW HAMPSHIRE REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED
TITLE XXXI Trade And Commerce
CHAPTER 339-E Sales Representatives and Post-Termination Commissions
GO TO NEW HAMPSHIRE STATUTES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY
RSA 339-E:1 (2012)
339-E:1 Definitions.
In this chapter:
1. “Commission” means compensation paid a sales representative by a principal, the rate of which is expressed as a percentage of the dollar amount of orders or sales of the principal’s product.
2. “Principal” means a person who manufactures, produces, imports or distributes a product for sale to customers who purchase the product for resale; uses a sales representative to solicit orders for such product; and compensates individuals who solicit orders, in whole or in part, by commission.
3. “Sales representative” means an individual other than an employee, who contracts with a principal to solicit orders and who is compensated, in whole or in part, by commission but shall not include one who places orders or pur-chases exclusively for his own account for resale.
4. “Termination” means the end of services performed by the sales representative for the principal by discharge, resignation, or death.
339-E:2 Contract.
A sales representative and a principal shall enter into a written contract for services to be performed within this state by a sales representative. The written contract entered into pursuant to this section shall contain provisions which establish:
The form of payment and the method by which such payment is to be computed and paid;
Reasonable length of notice which either party must provide to the other for termination of the contract;
The number of calendar days, up to a maximum of 45 days, after the date of termination or notification of death when all commissions due shall be paid; and
Any other terms and conditions which the parties agree to include in such contract.
The principal shall provide the sales representative a signed copy of a written contract entered into pursuant to this section.
A provision in the contract establishing venue for an action arising under the contract in a state other than this state is void.
339-E:3 Damages.
The party who fails to comply with a provision of a contract entered into under RSA 339-E:2 relating to payment of a commission is liable in a civil action for damages, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The court may award exemplary damages of up to 3 times the commission owed in an action brought under this chapter.
339-E:4 Jurisdiction.
A principal who is not a resident of this state who enters into a contract with a sales representative subject to this chapter shall be considered to be doing business in this state for purposes of the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the principal.
339-E:5 Other Remedies; Combination of Claims.
Nothing in this chapter shall invalidate or restrict any other or additional right or remedy available to a sales representative, or preclude a sales representative from seeking to recover in one action on all claims against a principal.
339-E:6 No Waivers by Contract.
A provision in any contract between a sales representative and a principal purporting to waive any provision of this chapter, whether by expressed waiver or by a contract subject to the laws of another state, shall be void.
WordPress Tags: Hampshire,Sales,Representative,STATUTES,TITLE,XXXI,Trade,Commerce,CHAPTER,Post,Termination,Commissions,ARCHIVE,DIRECTORY,Definitions,Commission,compensation,percentage,dollar,product,Principal,person,sale,customers,individuals,employee,account,resignation,death,Contract,payment,method,Reasonable,length,calendar,notification,provision,venue,action,Damages,attorney,Jurisdiction,purposes,Remedies,Combination,Claims,Waivers,waiver,laws,resale,pursuant
New Hampshire season pass release protects ski area from claim for injury due to snowmobile accident
Posted: February 4, 2013 Filed under: New Hampshire, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Bennington, Crotched Mountain Ski Area, Inc., New Hampshire, NH, Peak Resorts, Release, ski area, skiing, SNH Development, Snowmobile, Special Relationship, Waiver Leave a commentMcGrath v. SNH Development, Inc. 2008 N.H. Super. LEXIS 45
Language of the release was broad enough to cover those claims that were not clearly contemplated by the parties to the release.
The facts in this case are simple. The plaintiff was a season pass holder of Crotched Mountain Ski Area in Bennington, New Hampshire. Crotched Mountain Ski Area is owned by SNH Development, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Peak Resorts, Inc. While skiing at the resort one day an employee of the ski area drove a snowmobile into the plaintiff’s path causing a collision.
The plaintiff sued, and the defendants raised the defense of the release.
Summary of the case
The court reviewed the legal issues fairly extensively under New Hampshire law. Releases are upheld under New Hampshire law, as long as they:
(1) do not violate public policy; (2) the plaintiff understood the import of the agreement or a reasonable person in his position would have understood the import of the agreement; and (3) the plaintiff’s claims were within the contemplation of the parties when they executed the contract.”
Under New Hampshire law, to violate public policy the release must be between parties with a special relationship or there was a disparity in bargaining power. A special relationship exists if the defendant “is a common carrier, innkeeper or public utility, or is otherwise charged with a duty of public service...” The court found the ski area did not meet the definition to create a special relationship to the plaintiff.
There was no disparity of bargaining power because to have that situation, the services offered by the defendant must be a “matter of practical necessity.” A necessity is something needed to survive in this day and age, food, power, phone or utilities generally. Skiing is not necessary to survive; it is recreation.
The plaintiff also argued the release violated public policy because New Hampshire has a statute governing snowmobiles. Because the snow mobile was operating on private land, the court also rejected this argument.
The next claim was the release should not be upheld because it the plaintiff did not contemplate that the release would be used to bar a claim for an accident with a snowmobile. Under New Hampshire law the release does not have to name with any specificity, the possible claims that it will protect against. The release only has to adopt language that covers a broad range of accidents.
Thus, in order to release a defendant from liability for his own negligence, “the contract must clearly state that the defendant is not responsible for the consequences of his negligence.” There is no requirement that the term “negligence” or any other magic words appear in the release as long “as the language of the release clearly and specifically indicate the intent to release the defendant from liability for personal injury caused by the defendant’s negligence.”
From the quote from another New Hampshire case, Audley v. Melton, 138 N.H. 416, 418, 640 A.2d 777 (1994), it is obvious that in New Hampshire, you do not have to use the word negligence in a release. However, doing so creates more opportunities to test the release and the law.
The plaintiff argued that the release does not use the word snowmobile so a collision with a snowmobile falls outside of the release. However, a review of the release by the court found the language was broad enough to cover the facts in the case, a collision with a snowmobile.
This argument also created an argument that the release only covered the inherent risks of skiing. Inherent risks are those risks those are part and parcel of the risk. Inherent risks, unless changed by statute, do not cover any increases in the risk caused by man’s involvement. So a snowmobile is not an inherent risk of skiing.
However, the court found the release did not use the term inherent in it so the risks contemplated by the release were not limited to the inherent risks of the sport of skiing.
So Now What?
Like all cases involving a release, the release must be written carefully so not to be thrown out. This means someone who knows the law, knows the sport or activity you engage in and knows you must write the release.
Here, if the release had incorporated the word inherent, as many releases do, the release would have failed.
Plaintiff: Marcella McGrath f/k/a Marcella Widger
Defendant: SNH Development, Inc.
Plaintiff Claims: Negligence
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: Release bars the claims of the plaintiff
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FaceBook, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2013 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Email: blog@rec-law.us
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss Jim Moss
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer, Crotched Mountain Ski Area, Bennington, New Hampshire, SNH Development, Inc., Peak Resorts, Inc., Release, Waiver, New Hampshire, NH, Snowmobile, Ski Area, Special Relationship,
WordPress Tags: Hampshire,area,injury,accident,McGrath,Development,Super,LEXIS,Language,plaintiff,holder,Mountain,Bennington,Peak,Resorts,resort,employee,path,collision,defendants,Summary,Releases,policy,agreement,person,contemplation,Under,relationship,defendant,carrier,innkeeper,definition,situation,food,utilities,recreation,statute,argument,accidents,Thus,negligence,consequences,requirement,From,Audley,Melton,opportunities,Inherent,involvement,Here,Marcella,Widger,Claims,Defenses,Release,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Edit,Email,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,Waiver,Snowmobile,Special
McGrath v. SNH Development, Inc. 2008 N.H. Super. LEXIS 45
Posted: February 4, 2013 Filed under: Legal Case, New Hampshire, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Bennington, Crotched Mountain, Crotched Mountain Ski Area, Inc., New Hampshire, New Hampshire Superior Court, New Hampshire Supreme Court, NH, Peak Resorts, Release, ski area, skiing, SNH Development, Snowmobile, Special Relationship, Summary judgment, Waiver 1 CommentMcGrath v. SNH Development, Inc. 2008 N.H. Super. LEXIS 45
Marcella McGrath f/k/a Marcella Widger v. SNH Development, Inc. and John Doe, an unnamed individual
No. 07-C-0111
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
2008 N.H. Super. LEXIS 45
May 19, 2008, Decided
NOTICE:
THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Affirmed by McGrath v. SNH Dev., Inc., 158 N.H. 540, 969 A.2d 392, 2009 N.H. LEXIS 43 (2009)
CORE TERMS: skiing, ski area, personal injury, snowmobile, negligence claim, summary judgment, public policy, reasonable person, exculpatory, property damage, inherent hazard, public service, bargaining power, contemplate, import, common occurrence, relationship existed, citations omitted, hazardous, disparity, sport, exculpatory provision, exculpatory clause, public interest, privately owned, horseback riding, contemplation, collision, racing, voluntarily assume
JUDGES: [*1] GILLIAN L. ABRAMSON, PRESIDING JUSTICE.
OPINION BY: GILLIAN L. ABRAMSON
OPINION
ORDER
The plaintiff commenced the instant action alleging negligence against the defendants, SNH Development, Inc. (“SNH Development”) and John Doe, an unnamed individual. The defendants now move for summary judgment, and the plaintiff objects.
For purposes of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the parties do not appear to dispute the following facts. SNH Development is a subsidiary of Peak Resorts, Inc. and owns and operates the Crotched Mountain Ski Area in Bennington, New Hampshire. On October 23, 2003, the plaintiff signed an application (the “application”) for a season pass to the Crotched Mountain Ski Area. The application provides:
I understand and accept the fact that alpine skiing in its various forms is a hazardous sport, and I realize that injuries are a common occurrence. I agree, as a condition of being allowed to use the ski area facility, that I freely accept and voluntarily assume all risks of personal injury or death of property damage, release Crotched Mountain its owners and its agents, employees, directors, officers and shareholders from any and all liability for personal injury or property damage [*2] which results in any way from negligence, conditions on or about the premises, the operations of the ski area including, but not limited to, grooming snow making, ski lift operations, actions or omissions of employees or age the area, or my participation in skiing, accepting myself the full responsibility
Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. B. Moreover, on December 20, 2003, the plaintiff signed a Liability Release Agreement, which provides:
I understand and accept the fact that alpine skiing in its various forms is a hazardous sport, and I realize that injuries are a common occurrence. I agree, as a condition of being allowed to use the area facility, that I freely accept and voluntarily assume all risks of personal injury or death or property damage, and release Peak Resorts, Inc, all of its subsidiaries, and its agents, employees, directors, officers, shareholders and the manufacturers and distributors of this equipment and the school and group organizers (collective “providers’), from any and all liability for personal injury, death or property damage which results in any way from negligence, conditions on or about the premises, the operation of the area including, but not limited to grooming, [*3] snowmaking, lift operations, actions or omissions of employees or agents of the areas, or my participating in skiing, snowboarding, blading, accepting myself the full responsibility.
Id. On February 20, 2004, the plaintiff was skiing 1 a trail at the Crotched Mountain Ski Area when an employee of SNH Development drove a snowmobile into the plaintiff’s path, causing a collision.
1 Some of the pleadings state that the plaintiff was skiing, while other’s state that the plaintiff was snowboarding.
The defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff signed the application and the Liability Release Agreement, both of which are valid, enforceable exculpatory contracts. The plaintiff objects, arguing that the application and the Liability Release Agreement violate public policy and that the parties did not contemplate that the application or the Liability Release Agreement would bar the plaintiff’s negligence claim.
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court “consider[s] the affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” White v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 151 N.H. 544, 547, 864 A.2d 1101 (2004). [*4] The Court must grant a motion for summary judgment if its “review of the evidence does not reveal a genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law Id. A fact is material “if it affects the outcome of the litigation under the applicable substantive law.” Palmer v. Nan King Restaurant, 147 N.H. 681, 683, 798 A.2d 583 (2002).
New Hampshire law generally prohibits exculpatory contracts, but the Court will enforce them if; “(1) do not violate public policy; (2) the plaintiff understood the import of the agreement or a reasonable person in his position would have understood the import of the agreement; and (3) the plaintiff’s claims were within the contemplation of the parties when they executed the contract.” Dean v. MacDonald, 147 N.H. 263, 266-267, 786 A.2d 834 (2001). Thus, the Court considers each of these requirements in turn.
Regarding the first requirement, an exculpatory contract violates public policy if a special relationship existed between the parties or if there was some other disparity in bargaining power. See Barnes v. N.H. Karting Assoc., 128 N.H. 102, 106, 509 A.2d 151 (1986) (“A defendant seeking to avoid liability must show that the exculpatory agreement does [*5] not contravene public policy i.e that no special relationship existed between the parties and that there was no other disparity in bargaining power.”).
A special relationship exists “[w]here the defendant is a common carrier, innkeeper or public utility, or is otherwise charged with a duty of public service….” Id. The plaintiff contends that a special relationship existed between the parties because any person operating a snowmobile has a statutory duty to yield the right of way, RSA 215-C:49, XII (Supp. 2007), and because the Crotched Mountain Ski Area serves the public. Assuming that RSA 215-C:49, XII applies to the operation of a snowmobile on a privately owned ski area, the plaintiff has not offered any legal support for the conclusion that this statute somehow charges the defendants with a duty of public service. Moreover, the fact that the Crotched Mountain Ski Area serves the public is not conclusive. For example, Barnes, involved a negligence claim arising from a collision at an enduro kart racing facility. In Barnes, the New Hampshire Supreme Court noted that the defendant’s served the public but held that the defendant’s were not charged with a duty of public service because [*6] Endurokart racing is not “affected with a public interest.” Barnes, 128 N.H. at 108. Similarly, skiing is a recreational activity not affected with a public interest, and the Court finds that the defendant’s are not charged with a duty of public service.
The Plaintiff also contends that she was at an obvious disadvantage in bargaining power because all ski areas require skiers to sign releases. The Court disagrees.
This case … does not have any hallmarks of a disparity in bargaining power. The [skiing] service offered by the defendant is not a “matter of practical necessity.” Nor did the defendant in this ease have monopoly control over this service such that the plaintiff could not have gone elsewhere.
Audley v. Melton, 138 N.H. 416, 418, 640 A.2d 777 (1994) (quoting Barnes, 128 N.H. at 108). 2
2 The Plaintiff also argues that the application and the Liability Release Agreement violate public policy because they relieve the defendant’s from compliance with RSA chapter 215-C, which governs snowmobiles. Assuming that RSA chapter 215-C applies to the operation of a snowmobile on privately owned ski area, the application and the Liability Release Agreement would have no bearing on the enforcement of RSA chapter 215-C. [*7] See RSA 215-C-32 (Supp.2007) (providing for the enforcement of RSA chapter 215-C).
“Once an exculpatory agreement is found unobjectionable as a matter of public policy, it will be upheld only if it appears that the plaintiff understood the import of the agreement or that reasonable person in his position would have known of the exculpatory provision.” Barnes, 128 N.H. at 107. “The plaintiff’s understanding presents an issue of fact, and the plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove the fact at trial unless the exculpatory language was clear and a misunderstanding was unreasonable.” Wright v. Loon Mt. Recreation Corp., 140 N.H. 166, 169, 663 A.2d 1340 (1995). The Court
therefore examine[s] the language of the release to determine whether “a reasonable person in [the plaintiff’s] position would have known of the exculpatory provision.” A reasonable person would understand the provision if its language “clearly and specifically indicates the intent to release the defendant from liability for personal injury caused by the defendant’s negligence….”
Id. (citations omitted) (quoting Barnes, 128 N.H. at 107). The Court “will assess the clarity. the contract by evaluating it as a whole, not by examining [*8] isolated words and phrases. Id. at 169-170.
The plaintiff does not appear to dispute that she understood the import of the application or the Liability Release Agreement. Rather, the plaintiff argues that the parties did not contemplate that the application or the Liability Release Agreement would bar the plaintiff’s negligence claim. Thus, the Court turns to the third requirement.
“[T]he plaintiff’s claims must have been within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the execution of the agreement. The parties need not, however, have contemplated the precise occurrence that resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries. They may adopt language to cover, a broad range of accidents….” Barnes, 128 N.H. at 107 (citation omitted). To determine the scope of a release, the Court examines its language, strictly construing it against the defendant. Dean, 147 N.H. at 267.
Thus, in order to effectively release a defendant from liability for his own negligence, “the contract must clearly state that the defendant is not responsible for the consequences of his negligence.” There is no requirement that the term “negligence” or any other magic words appear in the release as long “as the language of [*9] the release clearly and specifically indicates the intent to release the defendant from liability for personal injury caused by the defendant’s negligence.”
Audley, 138 N.H. at 418 (citations omitted) (quoting Barnes, 128 N.H. at 107).
The plaintiff contends that the parties did not contemplate that the application or the Liability Release Agreement would bar the plaintiff’s negligence claim because neither the application nor the Liability Release Agreement reference snowmobiles. As rioted above, the parties need not have contemplated a negligence claim arising from a snowmobile accident. Rather, it is sufficient that the parties adopted language to cover a broad range of accidents. The application releases the defendants “from any and all liability for personal injury or property damage which results in any way from negligence,” and the Liability Release Agreement releases the defendants “from any and all liability for personal injury, death or property damage which results in from negligence.” Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. B. This language clearly states that the defendants are not responsible for the consequences of their negligence.
The Plaintiff also contends that the parties did [*10] not contemplate that the application or the Liability Release Agreement would bar the plaintiff’s negligence claim because snowmobiles are not an inherent hazard of skiing. The plaintiff relies on Wright. In Wright, the New Hampshire Supreme Court noted:
The paragraphs preceding the exculpatory clause emphasize the inherent hazards of horseback riding. Because the exculpatory clause is prefaced by the term “therefore,” a reasonable person might understand its language to relate to the inherent dangers of horseback riding and liability for injuries that occur “for that
Wright, 140 N.H. at 170. Here, however, the application and the Liability Release Agreement do not mention the inherent hazards of skiing. Rather, the application and the Liability Release Agreement note that skiing is a hazardous sport and that injuries are a common occurrence and then, without using the term “therefore,” release the defendants from any and all liability. Because the application and the Liability Release Agreement do not use the phrase “inherent hazards of skiing” or the term “therefore,” this case is distinguishable from Wright. A reasonable person would have contemplated that the application and the [*11] Liability Release Agreement would release the defendants from a negligence claim, whether nor not that claim arouse from an inherent hazard of skiing.
Based on the foregoing, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
So ORDERED.
Decision explains the liability in New Hampshire of a land owner allowing kids to sled on their land
Posted: October 15, 2012 Filed under: New Hampshire | Tags: Boy Scout, Boy Scouts of America, BSA, Daniel Webster Council, Eagle Scout, Jump, New Hampshire, Recreation, Recreational Use, Recreational Use Statute, Scout, Scout Leader, Sledding, snowboarding Leave a commentReed v. National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 2010 DNH 18; 706 F. Supp. 2d 180; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9236
Decision was a rare case were lawsuit was not brought until after the injured minor
reached age 18
In this decision, the plaintiff was an 11-year-old Boy Scout a camping trip. During the camp out the trip went sledding on a hill at a local Boy Scout Council camp. The
camp was not owned by a council that was not the chartering council of the scout troop. While sledding, the boys built a jump. Around lunch time the adult leaders left to go prepare lunch leaving the scouts unattended.
The court noted that this was in violation of the Guide to Safe Scouting, a set of procedures developed by the BSA to keep kids safer. (Safer, kids get hurt, it is part of growing up.)
The plaintiff sued the council that owned the camp, Boston Minuteman Council, the landowner and the National Council, BSA. The National Council grants charters to local groups, councils in a specific geographic area to offer the Scouting program to youth in their area. The local council, in this case Daniel Webster Council issued a charter to the group of parents who ran the troop the plaintiff was part of.
The court took note of the fact that neither volunteers scoutmasters nor the local council Daniel Webster Council.
The plaintiff was only 11 and the youngest scout on the camp out. He had watched other scouts go over the jump and fall. He had gone over the jump once when the scoutmaster was present and fell on his back but did not suffer any injuries. After the adult, volunteers left the area the plaintiff went over the jump again breaking his leg.
Summary of the case
The case has two major parts in the decision. The first is the decision over the land owner’s liability. The second is a motion in limine over the future or potential earnings and medical bills of the plaintiff. For the purpose of this article, the second part of the discussion will be ignored because it is not relevant.
The first point of interest in this decision is one sentence. The plaintiff did not sue until after he had turned age 18. Under the law a minor, someone under the age of 18 can sue by and through their parents in most states, any time after their injury, or they can wait until they turn age 18 and sue then. The parental lawsuit has a statute of limitation, in NH two years, because it is an adult suit on behalf of the minor child. The minor child when he reaches the age of majority, 18, then also has two years to sue after turning age 18.
The defendant land owner filed this motion for summary judgment based on the New Hampshire Recreational Use statute and fact the risk was an open and obvious danger.
The New Hampshire recreational use statute protects land owners from lawsuits brought by people who are using the land for free. The exception to the rule is if the injury to the plaintiff was caused intentionally by the land owner.
508:14 Landowner Liability Limited.
I. An owner, occupant, or lessee of land, including the state or any political subdivision, who without charge permits any person to use land for recreational purposes or as a spectator of recreational activity, shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage in the absence of intentionally caused injury or damage.
II. Any individual, corporation, or other nonprofit legal entity, or any individual who performs services for a nonprofit entity, that constructs, maintains, or improves trails for public recreational use shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage in the absence of gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
III. An owner of land who permits another person to gather the produce of the land under pick-your-own or cut-your-own arrangements, provided said person is not an employee of the landowner and notwithstanding that the person picking or cutting the produce may make remuneration for the produce to the landowner, shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage to any person in the absence of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct by such owner.
The plaintiff argued the defendant land owner should be held liable because only scouts were allowed on the land; therefore, the land was not open to the public, part of the statute. Court held that the statute had latitude or a land owner would lose all control over his or her land. The court held that the landowner could not be held liable because it was protected by the New Hampshire recreational sue statute.
The second defense brought by the landowner was the “open and obvious” defense.
“a defendant generally has no duty to warn and instruct a plaintiff of obvious dangers about which the plaintiff’s knowledge and appreciation equal the defendant’s.”
The “open and obvious” defense is similar to an assumption of risk defense. If you can see or understand the dangerous situation on the land, then the landowner has no duty to warn you of the dangers.
The open and obvious defense requires that the dangerous condition be recognizable by the reasonable person. In the case of a minor the reasonable person test is changed to a reasonable person of the same age, intelligence and experience. A jump created by the other youth would have been obvious to the plaintiff even at age 11. Jumps are made to throw people into the air. Many courts have found that sledding and snowboarding over jumps is something a person of the plaintiff’s age, intelligence and experience should recognize so the court found that the defendant did not owe a duty to warn of the dangers of sledding or snowboarding over a jump.
So Now What?
This is an interesting and odd case. Not suing the local council or the scoutmasters is confusing. Waiting until the plaintiff turned 18 is even more confusing.
However, you can gain a few things from this case.
1. If you are a volunteer unit leader understand the rules by which the parent organization expects you to operate and do not violate those rules.
2. If you are a landowner who knows that people use your land for free without charging them for it, do two things.
a. Make sure your state recreational use statute is broad enough to protect you from litigation.
b. Make sure your liability policy provides you with coverage for allowing people to use your land.
Please, do NOT stop people from using your land, Please!
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer, landowner, land owner, BSA, Boy Scouts of America, Council, Daniel Webster Council, Boston Minuteman Council, National Council, Scoutmaster, Recreational Use, Recreational Use Statute,
WordPress Tags: Decision,Hampshire,owner,National,Council,Scouts,America,Supp,Dist,LEXIS,lawsuit,plaintiff,Scout,hill,boys,Around,leaders,violation,Guide,Safe,procedures,Safer,Boston,Minuteman,landowner,councils,area,youth,Daniel,Webster,parents,fact,injuries,Summary,earnings,purpose,article,discussion,Under,injury,statute,limitation,defendant,judgment,Recreational,danger,owners,lawsuits,exception,occupant,lessee,subdivision,person,purposes,spectator,absence,corporation,negligence,misconduct,employee,remuneration,Court,latitude,dangers,knowledge,assumption,situation,intelligence,Jumps,Many,unit,leader,Make,litigation,policy,coverage,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,Scoutmaster,scoutmasters
Why accident reports can come back to haunt you.
Posted: March 12, 2012 Filed under: New Hampshire, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Alpine Slide, Attitasha Ski Area, Court, Expert Witness, Federal Supplement, Medicaid, Motion in Limine, New Hampshire Department of Safety, Ski Resort 4 CommentsHerbst v. L.B.O. Holding, Inc., 2011 DNH 72; 783 F. Supp. 2d 262; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46977; 85 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 285
Accident reports can be admitted, if the accident is substantially similar, which proves to the jury that you don’t mind injuring people.
In this case, the plaintiff as an adult, was using a ski area alpine slide when his sled left the track causing him injury. He sued for his injuries. The ski area,
Image via Wikipedia
Attitash Bear Peak Resort, in Bartlett, New Hampshire had filed a motion in limine with the court which gave rise to this decision.
A motion in limine is a motion where one party asks the court to exclude testimony or statements being proffered by the other party. Here the Ski area was attempting to have prior reports from accidents on the alpine slide kept out of the trial. The ski area and the plaintiff were also attempting to restrict or prohibit other testimony and exhibits also.
One of the first issues was the background and history of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was trying to prevent the defendant from brining in the issue that the plaintiff had been convicted of mail fraud. An issue like this is based on whether the felony conviction is a conviction for dishonesty or fraud. Here it was a felony conviction for dishonesty. A felony normally cannot be brought in, absent special circumstances if the conviction is greater than ten (10) years old. Although the plaintiff’s conviction was greater than ten years old, because of the type of conviction, the judge thought it was relevant and allowed the conviction to be used at trial.
The next issue was the amount of medical bills incurred by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs’ medical bills were paid by Medicaid. As such, those bills when paid were discounted substantially. The plaintiff wanted to claim the medical bills were the amount prior to the Medicaid discount. Here the judge found that the full value of the medical bills was to be admitted not the discounted amount paid by Medicaid.
The value of the medical bills is always an important point. The jury usually bases its damages as a function of the medical bills.
The defendant wanted to exclude expert testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness about warning signs or the inadequacy thereof. The plaintiff’s expert had only mentioned the signs in one sentence of his report and included photographs of the signs in his report. An expert witness report must contain a complete statement of the opinions he or she will express and the basis or the reasons for those opinions. The defense argued the one sentence was not enough to be a complete statement of the opinion. However, the court found it to be enough and will allow the testimony of the expert about the inadequacy of the signage into the trial.
The final argument was the plaintiff wanted to admit into evidence the accident reports of the 22 similar prior accidents. Six of the reports came from the New Hampshire Department of Safety, and 15 were from Attitash itself. One of the reports was based on an observation of the plaintiff’s expert witness when he was at the site investigating the scene.
So?
For an accident report to be admitted into trial the report must be substantially similar to the accident at issue.
Evidence of prior accidents is admissible . . . only if the proponent of the evidence shows that the accidents occurred under circumstances substantially similar to those at issue in the case at bar
The court found that four of the reports would be admitted of the six filed with the state and the 15 kept by the defendant. Those six were substantially similar to the accident that injured the plaintiff. Here, that similarity was the sled leaving the track on a curve.
The court found the following four reports significant and similar.
· the accident on July 12, 2005 (where the rider “came through [the] dip, came to next set of banks, came out of track”);
· the accident on July 23, 2005 (where the “sled came off track” near a bank);
· the accident on August 3, 2005 (where the rider “hit the curve, jumped the track”); and
· the accident on July 16, 2006 (where the rider “came from a right turn into a left turn and his cart flew off”).
The court also agreed to allow the report of the plaintiff’s expert witness of the accident he observed.
The issue then becomes what does this prove?
I believe it proves that it proves to the jury that the defendant has a dangerous track. The jury will see four reports from injuries substantially similar to the one the plaintiff is complaining about. How else could you look at these reports, except as proof that the track was dangerous AND that the defendant had done nothing to correct the problems or make the track safe.
Here were accidents for five years prior to the plaintiff’s accident and one, the expert witness one, occurring after the injury that showed there was a problem.
No matter, how much your employees and expert witness argue that the track is not dangerous, the jury is going to be looking at reports, written documents, prepared by you the defendant, saying the exact opposite.
So Now What?
Do you not create accident reports. No, you must keep records of problems, until they are fixed or used in litigation. However the reason for the reports is critical. If you are keeping them to track accidents, you are doing it for the wrong reason. You use them to do two things and two things only.
· Provide information in case there is a need such as state or federal investigation or litigation.
· To solve problems.
1. Any accident report must be solely that, the basic facts, who, what, where, when; never ever, ever a why.
Accident reports should never have speculation or opinion in them.
2. You must do something with the information you gather on accident reports. You cannot just collect them. If you notice a trend or locations fix it.
If you can’t fix it, put up a sign, put it in the waiver, instruct the people about it and tell them they will get hurt if they don’t pay attention.
Below is the accident report used by a major ski area. If you look, the information collected is done so to gather information and prevent litigation.
Nothing more than the absolute essentials is captured. These are 5 X 7 cards. The information on the form is 100% from the injured party. No information is put on the card by the patrollers unless it is direct information acquired by the patroller such as the release number setting on the skis, etc.
If there are witnesses then there are 5 X 7 cards for them to complete. There was also a form if a ski school student was injured. If the accident was a life changing incident, major trauma then there were more forms. But for 99% of the accidents, the entire report fit in a patroller’s pocket.
If the injured party cannot fill out the card, then the patroller asks the questions and writes down what the injured party says.
No opinion, no estimates, no guesses, just the facts. (Remember Dragnet the TV show from the 60s.)
Then, once you have the information it must be used. Where are the problems, can we fix the problems, should we warn people about the problems? What can we do to prevent injuries, and if we can’t can we warn people they don’t get injured?
If not, those reports will show up in trial, and probably not to help you.
For an article about bad accident reports see Be Afraid, be very afraid of pre-printed forms for your recreation business.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, #Accident, Accident Report, Alpine Slide, #Slide, #Sled,
Herbst v. L.B.O. Holding, Inc., 2011 DNH 72; 783 F. Supp. 2d 262; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46977; 85 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 285
Posted: March 12, 2012 Filed under: Legal Case, New Hampshire, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue) | Tags: Alpine Slide, Attitash, Attitash Ski Area, Federal Supplement, Motion in Limine, New Hampshire, United States, United States district court Leave a commentHerbst v. L.B.O. Holding, Inc., 2011 DNH 72; 783 F. Supp. 2d 262; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46977; 85 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 285
Edward Herbst v. L.B.O. Holding, Inc., d/b/a Attitash Bear Peak Resort
Civil No. 09-cv-233-JL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
2011 DNH 72; 783 F. Supp. 2d 262; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46977; 85 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 285
May 2, 2011, Decided
May 2, 2011, Filed
COUNSEL: [**1] For Edward Herbst, Dina Herbst, Plaintiffs: R. Peter Taylor, McNeill Taylor & Gallo PA, Dover, NH.
For L.B.O. Holding, Inc., Defendant: Thomas B.S. Quarles, Jr., Devine Millimet & Branch PA (Manchester), Manchester, NH.
JUDGES: Joseph N. Laplante, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: Joseph N. Laplante
OPINION
[*264] MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case arises from injuries, including a broken ankle, that plaintiff Edward Herbst suffered after falling off an alpine slide at Attitash Bear Peak Resort, a ski area in Bartlett, New Hampshire that offers the slide as a summer recreational activity. Herbst brought suit against the resort’s owner, L.B.O. Holding, Inc. (“Attitash”), asserting claims for strict products liability and negligence. Specifically, he alleges that the slide is unreasonably dangerous to its riders, that Attitash was negligent in operating it, and that Attitash failed to adequately instruct and warn Herbst on its proper use. Attitash denies those allegations and asserts that Herbst’s [*265] own negligence caused the accident. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (diversity).
Both parties have moved in limine to admit or exclude various types of evidence at the upcoming jury trial, currently [**2] scheduled for May 2011. See L.R. 16.2(b)(3). Specifically, Attitash has moved to admit evidence of Herbst’s prior conviction for mail fraud, to exclude evidence of the face amount of Herbst’s medical bills, and to preclude Herbst’s expert witness from testifying about the adequacy of the slide’s warnings. Herbst, in turn, has moved to admit evidence of prior and subsequent accidents on Attitash’s alpine slide. Following oral argument, this court rules on the limine motions as set forth below.
I.Attitash’s motion to admit prior conviction1
1 Document no. 19.
Attitash has moved to admit evidence that Herbst was convicted of felony mail fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1341, in a New York federal court on July 30, 1999, when he was 46 years old. See United States v. Herbst, No. 98-cr-771-001 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 1999). Specifically, Herbst pled guilty to using the mails in connection with bribing an employee of the New York City Department of Finance to reduce or eliminate his overdue property taxes and interest. He served a three-month prison sentence, ending on or before January 1, 2000, and then remained on supervised release for a period of three years.
As a general rule, [HN1] “evidence that any witness [**3] has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted” for impeachment purposes “if it readily can be determined that establishing the elements of the crime required proof or admission of an act of dishonesty or false statement by the witness.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2). Herbst concedes that his mail fraud conviction involved dishonesty or false statement and therefore falls within that rule. See, e.g., United States v. Orlando-Figueroa, 229 F.3d 33, 46 (1st Cir. 2000).
But evidence of such a conviction “is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is later, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(b).2
2 Rule 609(b) also requires “sufficient advance written notice to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use” of the prior conviction, which Herbst concedes he has received.
More than ten years have passed since Herbst was released from the confinement imposed [**4] for his mail fraud conviction. Attitash argues that Herbst is to blame for that fact, because he waited nearly three years after his 2006 accident to bring this action, and then requested a trial continuance in 2010. But Attitash has not shown that Herbst acted improperly in either regard, or that he “manipulated either the calendar or the scheduling process in order to postpone the trial and allow the clock to run on [his] conviction.”3 United States v. Nguyen, 542 F.3d 275, 280 (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting a similar argument that “had [the] trial started a few months earlier–as did the trial of [certain] codefendants–the ten-year window would have [*266] remained open”). So there is no reason not to apply Rule 609(b) here. Id. at 281.
3 Indeed, personal injury actions are routinely brought near the end of the limitations period, so as to allow the nature of the injury to become fully understood.
[HN2] “Given the tenor of Rule 609(b), common sense suggests that felony convictions more than ten years old should be admitted only sparingly and in especially compelling circumstances,” based on a “particularized showing” that their probative value substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. Id. at 278 [**5] (citing 4 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.06[1] (2d ed. 2007)). Factors to consider in making that determination “may include (i) the impeachment value of the particular convictions, (ii) their immediacy or remoteness . . .; (iii) the degree of potential prejudice that they portend; (iv) the importance of the defendant’s testimony; and (v) the salience of the credibility issue in the circumstances of the particular case.” United States v. Brito, 427 F.3d 53, 64 (1st Cir. 2005).
Here, Herbst’s mail fraud conviction has a direct bearing on his credibility and veracity, and thus a high degree of impeachment value. He demonstrated a willingness to defraud others to improve his own financial situation. Because Herbst is the primary, and in some respects only, witness to his accident and the ride(s) leading up to it (which allegedly affected his state of mind, making him feel the need to slide faster), and because Attitash contends that Herbst himself was at fault for the accident, his testimony is likely to be of great importance at trial, and his credibility is likely to be a particularly salient issue for the jury.
“Of course, [HN3] the mere fact that [**6] [a witness’s] credibility is in issue . . . cannot, by itself, justify admission of evidence of convictions over ten years old,” because that “would make the ten year limit in Rule 609(b) meaningless.” United States v. Brown, 603 F.2d 1022, 1028 (1st Cir. 1979). But the case for admitting evidence of Herbst’s mail fraud conviction is especially compelling here, given the fraudulent nature of his crime, the likely importance of his testimony and credibility with regard to events that only he (and, in some respects, his daughter) witnessed, and that his conviction, which occurred when he was 46 years old, is barely older than ten years.4
4 In fact, as noted supra, had this action been filed earlier, or trial not been continued, impeachment would have been permitted under Rule 609(a).
While the admission of a prior felony conviction always carries some risk of prejudice, that risk is much lower here than it would be, for example, in a criminal case brought against Herbst. See, e.g., Orlando-Figueroa, 229 F.3d at 46 (noting that “Rule 609 is primarily concerned with potential unfairness to a [criminal] defendant when his prior convictions are offered” and concluding that, even under the particular [**7] circumstances of that criminal case, the court could have admitted evidence of a witness’s mail fraud conviction under Rule 609(b), over the defendant’s objection).
The risk of prejudice is further reduced because Herbst suffered objectively verifiable injuries in the accident (including a broken ankle) and is not the only person who has done so in recent years. See Part IV, infra. Given that evidence, the jury is unlikely to regard the accident itself, or Herbst’s decision to bring this lawsuit, as fraudulent, or to reject his claims merely because he has a criminal history. Rather, it is likely to consider Herbst’s conviction for the limited, and proper, purpose of determining whether to believe his specific testimony regarding his conduct on the slide, the reasons for it (including his state of mind), and the pain and suffering it caused him.
[*267] Having considered the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the court concludes that the probative value of Herbst’s mail fraud conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect, and that it is in the interests of justice to admit it into evidence. Attitash’s motion to admit that evidence is therefore granted. To further reduce [**8] any risk of prejudice, Herbst may request a limiting instruction to the jury, both when the evidence is admitted and in the final jury charge. See, e.g., United States v. Tracy, 36 F.3d 187, 194 (1st Cir. 1994).
II.Attitash’s motion to exclude medical bills5
5 Document no. 20.
Attitash has moved to preclude Herbst from introducing evidence of the face amounts of his medical bills, arguing that the reasonable value of medical services is the amount actually paid for them (here, by Medicaid), not the higher amount billed. [HN4] This court has repeatedly refused, however, “‘to exclude evidence of the billed cost of medical services’ in favor of ‘the amounts actually paid’ in satisfaction of those costs by the plaintiff’s health insurers.” Reed v. Nat’l Council of Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 706 F. Supp. 2d 180, 190 (D.N.H. 2010) (quoting Aumand v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Med. Ctr., 611 F. Supp. 2d 78, 91 (D.N.H. 2009)); see also Bartlett v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142906, 2010 WL 3156555, at * 2; Williamson v. Odyssey House, Inc., 2000 DNH 238, 2000 WL 1745101, at *1 (DiClerico, D.J.).
As explained more fully in those decisions, Medicaid write-offs fall within the scope of New Hampshire’s collateral source [**9] rule, which “provides that ‘if a plaintiff is compensated in whole or part for his damages by some source independent of the tort-feasor, he is still permitted to make full recovery against the tort-feasor.'” Reed, 706 F. Supp. 2d at 190 (quoting Moulton v. Groveton Papers Co., 114 N.H. 505, 509, 323 A.2d 906 (1974)). Accordingly, this court has not only permitted plaintiffs to present evidence of the amounts billed, but has prohibited defendants from presenting evidence of the amounts actually paid, deeming such evidence unfairly prejudicial. See, e.g., Bartlett, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142906, 2010 WL 3156555, at *2 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 403).
Attitash notes that a number of New Hampshire Superior Court judges have reached the opposite conclusion. But this court considered much, if not all, of that case law in Reed, which noted that there is Superior Court precedent in both directions and announced that “unless and until this state’s version of the collateral source rule is changed by the New Hampshire legislature or New Hampshire Supreme Court, this court will continue to apply it to billed amounts ‘written off’ by a plaintiff’s providers, in accordance with existing law here and in the vast majority of other jurisdictions.” [**10] 706 F. Supp. 2d at 190, 194.6
6 This is not to say, however, that the court finds the contrary Superior Court decisions wholly unpersuasive, at least as a policy matter, particularly in the context of private health insurance (as opposed to Medicaid or other public health insurance). But it is this state’s legislature–or, with respect to common-law rules, its Supreme Court–which decides such matters, not this court.
Attitash’s motion in limine is therefore denied. It is important to note, however, that Attitash may still challenge whether the billed amounts reflect the reasonable value of Herbst’s medical services, provided it does not use evidence of the Medicaid write-offs to do so, and otherwise complies with the rules of evidence. See [*268] Bartlett, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142906, 2010 WL 3156555, at *2 (citing Reed, 706 F. Supp. 2d at 194).
III.Attitash’s motion to exclude expert testimony on warnings7
7 Document no. 34. The court discussed this issue with the parties at oral argument (before Attitash’s motion had been filed) and then gave both parties an opportunity to brief it before trial.
Attitash has also moved to preclude Herbst’s expert witness, engineer John Mroszczyk, from testifying that the slide’s warnings were [**11] inadequate, arguing that no such opinion was disclosed in his expert report. See [HN5] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) (expert “report must contain . . . a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them“) and 37(c)(1) (where “a party fails to provide information . . . as required by Rule 26(a),” it “is not allowed to use that information . . . at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless“). The only warning-related opinion expressly set forth in Mroszczyk’s report was that the slide had “a number of instruction and warning signs at the slide loading area” (photos of which he attached to the report), but “no speed limit signs posted along the slide.”
Herbst concedes “that it would certainly have been preferable to ensure that Mroszczyk clearly expressed his opinion” about the warnings in his expert report, see document no. 33, at 4, but nevertheless argues that it is a reasonable inference from the report that he considers the warnings inadequate, and that he should therefore be allowed to offer that opinion at trial. See, e.g., Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 619 F.3d 748, 762 (7th Cir. 2010) (expert report need [**12] not “replicate every word that the expert might say on the stand,” as long as it sufficiently “convey[s] the substance of the expert’s opinion . . . so that the opponent will be ready to rebut, to cross-examine, and to offer a competing expert, if necessary”) (quotation omitted).
Herbst has submitted an affidavit from Mroszczyk clarifying that he “do[es] not believe that any warning in a sign regarding the particular problems” that Herbst encountered on the alpine slide “would be adequate to make this ride safe,” i.e., he “do[es] not believe that this condition in the slide could be made safe by warnings.” Document no. 33-1, at 2. This court agrees that such an opinion can be reasonably inferred from his report, which, after noting the existing signs and the lack of speed limits, states that riders have no ability to gauge their speed anyway and that, even “at a reasonable speed,” they could still “leave the track.” The strong implication is that no warning would be adequate.
The problem with that opinion, at least for Herbst, is that it means that Attitash’s alleged failure to warn did not cause his accident and injuries, because, according to Mroszczyk, no warning would have been adequate [**13] to protect Herbst from the particular problems he encountered. See, e.g., Trull v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 145 N.H. 259, 264, 761 A.2d 477 (2000) (“failure to warn must be [a] proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries”); LeBlanc v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 141 N.H. 579, 586, 688 A.2d 556 (1997) (“[t]he issue in [a] failure to warn claim . . . is whether the danger . . . was or could have been made reasonable by the issuance of adequate warnings”). In other words, the opinion supports Herbst’s unreasonable dangerousness theory, but at the expense of his failure-to-warn theory.
Nevertheless, if Herbst wishes to offer Mroszczyk’s opinion at trial that the slide’s warnings were inadequate because no warning regarding the particular problems [*269] that Herbst encountered would have made the ride safe, this court will allow him to do so. While not expressly disclosed in Mroszczyk’s report, that opinion can be reasonably inferred from the substance of the report, and Attitash has received sufficient notice to “be ready to rebut [it], to cross-examine, and to offer a competing expert, if necessary.” Metavante, 619 F.3d at 762. Attitash’s motion to exclude such testimony is denied.8
8 Mroszczyk should be careful, however, not to venture [**14] beyond the limited opinion set forth above, or to suggest (contrary to that opinion) that some other warning by Attitash would have been adequate to prevent Herbst’s accident.
IV.Herbst’s motion to admit evidence of other accidents9
9 Document no. 15.
Herbst, in turn, has moved to admit evidence of various other accidents on Attitash’s alpine slide, including 21 that occurred between 2004 and 2006 (either prior to or just after his accident), and also one that his expert witness, Mroszczyk, happened to observe in 2010 while conducting a site visit for purposes of inspecting the slide and preparing his expert report in this case.10 Attitash objects that those accidents were not substantially similar to Herbst’s accident and that, in any event, evidence of other accidents–particularly the one Mroszczyk witnessed in 2010–would be unfairly prejudicial, would confuse the jury, and would unduly delay the trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
10 Herbst initially sought to admit evidence of even more accidents, including some involving collisions between two riders. At oral argument and in his subsequent briefing, however, he narrowed his request to those accidents that he considers most similar to his [**15] own.
[HN6] “Evidence of prior accidents is admissible . . . only if the proponent of the evidence shows that the accidents occurred under circumstances substantially similar to those at issue in the case at bar.” Moulton v. Rival Co., 116 F.3d 22, 26-27 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting McKinnon v. Skil Corp., 638 F.2d 270, 277 (1st Cir. 1981)). Both parties agree that the same requirement applies to subsequent accidents, as other courts have held. See, e.g., Reddin v. Robinson Prop. Group, LP, 239 F.3d 756, 760 (5th Cir. 2001). “At bottom, the ‘substantially similar’ requirement is a more particularized approach to the requirement that evidence be probative.” Trull v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 187 F.3d 88, 98 n.9 (1st Cir. 1999).
“‘Substantial similarity’ is a function of the theory of the case.” Moulton, 116 F.3d at 27. Here, Herbst’s theory (supported by expert testimony) is that Attitash’s alpine slide causes riders to move side-to-side within the slide and sometimes to lose control, particularly through curves; and that if a rider reaches the end of a curve embankment in that state, there is a risk of falling off the slide, as allegedly happened in his accident. According to Herbst’s expert, many [**16] curves in the slide pose that risk. In light of that theory, this court construes “substantially similar” to mean, for purposes of this case, that the rider in the other accident must have lost control around a curve and fallen off the slide.
A.2004-2006 accidents
Herbst has made evidentiary proffers regarding each of the accidents at issue. For the 21 accidents occurring between 2004 and 2006, he has submitted accident reports (6 from the New Hampshire Department of Safety and 15 from Attitash itself). The reports, however, provide very little detail. Most of them [*270] indicate that the rider fell off the slide, but not how or where it happened. Mroszczyk believes that each accident “probably” involved loss of control and ejection around a curve, because riders ordinarily would not fall off the slide on a straightaway. But at least two of the accidents were described as occurring on a straightaway, and some had other causes (e.g., a squirrel in the track). So that assumption seems flawed.
This court has closely reviewed each of the accident reports and finds that Herbst has met his burden of showing substantial similarity only as to four accidents:
· the accident on July 12, 2005 (where the [**17] rider “came through [the] dip, came to next set of banks, came out of track”);
· the accident on July 23, 2005 (where the “sled came off track” near a bank);
· the accident on August 3, 2005 (where the rider “hit the curve, jumped the track”); and
· the accident on July 16, 2006 (where the rider “came from a right turn into a left turn and his cart flew off”).
All of the other accidents involved materially different circumstances, or at least were not sufficiently described for this court to deem them substantially similar. See, e.g., Downey v. Bob’s Disc. Furniture Holdings, Inc., 633 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2011) (affirming the exclusion of such evidence where plaintiffs proffered only a “bare bones” printout containing a “cryptic description” of prior incidents, with “no details,” and “conducted no investigation into the underlying facts”).11
11 Herbst argues that Attitash admitted, in an interrogatory, that all 15 of the accident reports it produced involved “accidents similar to the plaintiff’s: where an operator left the track and was injured.” But, [HN7] for purposes of discovery, “a flexible treatment of relevance is required and the making of discovery . . . is not a concession or determination [**18] of relevance for purposes of trial,” or admissibility. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), advisory committee notes (1970). Attitash’s interrogatory answer was not an admission of substantial similarity within the meaning of Moulton.
Attitash argues that evidence of even the substantially similar accidents should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial, confusing to the jury, and likely to unduly delay the trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. But this court sees little to no risk in any of those respects. Because the accident reports provide so little detail, and appear to be the only available evidence of what happened, the use of such evidence will necessarily be limited in scope. Its main purpose is simply to show that riders occasionally lose control and fall off the track around a curve, as Herbst did, and that Attitash had notice of that risk. That is a proper and probative purpose, which outweighs any of the countervailing concerns listed in Rule 403.
This court therefore grants Herbst’s request to admit evidence of the four accidents noted above, but denies his request to admit evidence of the other accidents between 2004 and 2006. If Herbst believes that this court has overlooked any accident(s) [**19] with circumstances comparably similar to those four accidents, or has additional evidence of substantial similarity beyond that proffered to date, he may raise that issue and/or make a further evidentiary proffer at trial, outside the presence of the jury.
B.2010 accident
For the accident in 2010, Herbst has submitted an affidavit from Mroszczyk explaining what he observed. According to Mroszczyk, that accident, like Herbst’s, involved a rider’s loss of control, side-to-side movement within the slide, and then [*271] ejection from the slide around a curve (albeit a different curve, more than 100 feet down the slide from where Herbst fell). Mroszczyk claims that sequence of events “is precisely what I believe occurred to Mr. Herbst.” Based on that proffer, this court finds that Herbst has sufficiently shown that the 2010 accident was substantially similar to his own, clearing that hurdle for admissibility.12
12 Attitash argues that the 2010 accident resulted from the rider going airborne over a slide feature called “the dip” (not from being ejected around a curve), but that strikes the court as implausible, given the considerable distance between the dip and the place where the rider landed. Attitash [**20] has not proffered any evidence to support that version of events. In any event, if Attitash wishes to challenge Mroszczyk’s testimony regarding how that accident happened, it may do so at trial. An adjuster from Attitash’s insurance company also witnessed the accident and could be called as a witness.
Attitash argues that evidence of the 2010 accident should nevertheless be excluded as unfairly prejudicial, confusing to the jury, and likely to unduly delay the trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is true that such evidence may pose some risk of prejudice and juror confusion, since the accident happened, incidentally, on the day when Herbst’s expert was inspecting the slide, which might suggest to the jury that accidents happen on the alpine slide with greater frequency than they actually do. Attitash, though, has the ability to present evidence of how often accidents actually happen.13 The jury should not have any trouble understanding or accepting that the timing was just a coincidence.
13 The standard for defendants to introduce evidence of prior accidents is more lenient than for plaintiffs. See Trull, 187 F.3d at 98 n.9.
Conversely, evidence of the 2010 accident has very high probative [**21] value. Mroszczyk’s direct observation of an accident substantially similar to the one that Herbst suffered has the ability to inform, and even corroborate, his expert opinions about what happened to Herbst, and the reason(s) for it. That firsthand experience could make his testimony much more persuasive and helpful to the jury, whereas preventing him from discussing the accident could leave the jury with an incomplete, and potentially inaccurate, understanding of the basis for and reliability of his opinions.
On balance, this court concludes that the probative value of the 2010 accident outweighs the risk of prejudice and juror confusion, and therefore grants Herbst’s motion to admit evidence of that accident. As to Attitash’s argument that such evidence will cause undue delay, this court doubts that will happen, but will keep that concern in mind during trial and will be open to any proposals that Attitash may have (short of outright exclusion) for reasonably limiting the amount of such evidence, and the manner in which it is presented, so as to avoid undue delay and reduce the risk of prejudice.
V.Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Attitash’s motion to admit evidence of Herbst’s [**22] prior conviction14 is GRANTED, Attitash’s motion to exclude evidence of Herbst’s medical bills15 is DENIED, Attitash’s motion to preclude Mroszczyk from testifying about the slide’s warnings16 is DENIED, and Herbst’s motion to admit evidence of [*272] prior and subsequent accidents17 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
14 Document no. 19.
15 Document no. 20.
16 Document no. 34.
17 Document no. 15.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Joseph N. Laplante
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated: May 2, 2011
Recreation Law 