Advertisements

Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998)

Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998)
Eric Bayer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Crested Butte
Mountain Resort, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97SA145
Supreme Court
May 18, 1998
Petition for Rehearing DENIED. EN BANC. June 22, 1998
Certification of Questions of Law from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Pursuant to C.A.R. 21.1
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Jean E. Dubofsky, P.C., Jean E. Dubofsky, Boulder, Colorado, Purvis, Gray, Schuetze & Gordon, Robert A. Schuetze, Glen F. Gordon, Boulder, Colorado, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.

White & Steele, P.C., Glendon L. Laird, John M. Lebsack, Peter W. Rietz, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee.

EN BANC
JUSTICE KOURLIS dissents, and CHIEF JUSTICE VOLLACK joins in the dissent.
JUSTICE HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

[1] Pursuant to C.A.R. 21.1, we agreed to answer the following questions certified to us by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

What standard of care governs the duty owed by ski lift operators in Colorado to users of those lifts in the winter season?

Separately, and more particularly, does the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Act and/or the Colorado Ski Safety and Liability Act preempt or otherwise supersede the pre-existing Colorado common law standard of care governing the duty owed by ski lift operators to users of those lifts in the winter season?

[2] These questions arise in connection with Eric Bayer’s negligence suit against Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc. (Crested Butte) involving serious injuries he sustained after falling approximately 30 feet from a ski lift at the Crested Butte ski area.

[3] The federal district court concluded that the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Act (Tramway Act) and the Colorado Ski Safety and Liability Act (Ski Safety Act) have substituted a lesser degree of care for ski lift operators than the highest degree of care, thus superseding our holding in Summit County Development v. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. 27, 40, 441 P.2d 658, 664 (1968). Based on its ruling that a standard of ordinary care applies, the district court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case.

[4] In answering the certified questions, we reaffirm our holding in Bagnoli. A ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the lift’s practical operation, regardless of the season.

I.

[5] Eric Bayer, a 19-year-old college student and resident of Florida, was skiing at the Crested Butte ski area on December 31, 1992. He boarded the Paradise Lift, a double-chair, center pole lift, with a person whom he did not know. This lift was not equipped with restraining devices on the chairs. Bayer rode the Paradise Lift for about 100 yards, lost consciousness, slumped in his chair, and slid feet first to the ground below. He suffered serious and permanent head injuries from the fall. The cause of his unconsciousness remains unknown.

[6] The Passenger Tramway Safety Board (Board), which regulates ski lifts in Colorado, requires the use of restraining devices during summer lift operation but has no companion requirement for winter operation. Bayer does not dispute that Crested Butte complied with applicable Board regulations.

[7] The existence and scope of a legal duty of care is a question of law. See United Blood Servs. v. Quintana, 827 P.2d 509, 519 (Colo. 1992). In Bagnoli, we determined that a ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with practical operation of a lift. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 40, 441 P.2d at 664. In answering the certified questions, we must determine whether the Tramway Act or the Ski Safety Act, or the two in combination, have modified or preempted our holding in Bagnoli.[fn1]

II.

[8] We hold that the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act, alone or in combination, have not preempted or superseded the common law standard requiring a ski lift operator to exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation of the ski lift. The General Assembly did not intend by either act to substitute a standard of care lesser than the highest degree.

[9] Under the Tramway Act, the primary responsibility for the design and operation of ski lifts, consistent with our holding in Bagnoli, rests with the operators; the board is to adopt reasonable standards for the industry, but these are not intended to preclude common law negligence actions or the duty to exercise the highest degree of care. The Ski Safety Act establishes the relative duties of skiers and ski area operators on the ski slopes, limits damage awards, and precludes liability claims resulting from the inherent dangers and risks of skiing, while expressly excluding ski lift accidents from these limitations.

A.

[10] The Highest Degree of Care

[11] A basic proposition of tort law is that the amount of care demanded by the standard of reasonable conduct must be in proportion to the risk; the greater the danger, the higher is the degree of caution which the person owing the duty must exercise. See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 34, at 208-09 (5th ed. 1984). As we said in Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van Hoose, 679 P.2d 579, 587 (Colo. 1984), “It is axiomatic in the law of negligence that the greater the risk, the greater the amount of care required to avoid injury to others.”

[12] Our holding in Bagnoli squarely placed on lift operators the duty to exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of the ski lift because (1) passengers give up their freedom of action and movement, surrendering themselves to the care and custody of the ski lift operator, (2) there is usually nothing passengers can do to cause or prevent the accident, and (3) the operator has exclusive possession and control of the ski lift. See Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 40, 441 P.2d at 664. We derived these factors directly from our prior decision in Lewis v. Buckskin Joe’s, Inc., 156 Colo. 46, 56, 396 P.2d 933, 938-39 (1964), wherein we held that amusement ride operators must “exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation” of the ride.[fn2]

[13] Underlying our adoption in Bagnoli of the Lewis factors is that ski lifts are operated at considerable height from the ground over rough, elevated, often precipitous Colorado terrain. A fall from the lift can be calamitous. Passengers entrust their safety to the lift operators. Operation of a ski lift thus entails both greater danger and greater responsibility than circumstances involving ordinary care.

[14] In addressing the federal district court’s conclusion that the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act supersede Bagnoli, we first discuss the legislative design and purposes of the two acts.

B.

[15] The Tramway Act And The Ski Safety Act [16] The statutory canons of construction require us to give effect to the plain meaning of statutory enactments; we must employ rules of grammar and common usage and accord to technical terms and legislative definitions their particular meaning. See 2-4-101, 1 C.R.S. (1997).

[17] The Colorado General Assembly initially addressed ski safety in Colorado through the 1965 Tramway Act. The act’s purpose is to assist in safeguarding life, health, property, and the welfare of the state in the operation of passenger tramways.[fn3] See 25-5-701, 8 C.R.S. (1997). The act establishes a Board “to prevent unnecessary mechanical hazards” and to “assure that reasonable design and construction are used for, that 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, passenger tramways.” 25-5-701, 8 C.R.S. (1997). The General Assembly has confirmed that, notwithstanding the powers and duties of the Tramway Board, “[t]he primary responsibility for design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection rests with the area operators” of passenger tramway devices. 25-5-705, 8 C.R.S. (1997) (emphasis added).

[18] The legislature has empowered the Board[fn4] with rulemaking and enforcement authority to carry out its functions. The Board is authorized, but not required, to utilize the standards adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), see 25-5-704, 8 C.R.S. (1997), and has authority to conduct investigations and inspections, to discipline ski area operators, to issue licenses, to order emergency shut downs, and to engage in other functions related to the purpose of the Tramway Act, see 25-5-704 to -716, 8 C.R.S. (1997).[fn5] The Board by regulation has adopted the ANSI 1992 standards, with some additions, revisions, and deletions. See Rule 0.1, 3 C.C.R. 718-1 at 1.

[19] Building on the construct of the Tramway Act, the General Assembly followed with the Ski Safety Act in 1979. This act supplements the Tramway Act’s focus on ski lifts, but its principal function is to define the duties of ski areas and skiers with regard to activities and features on the ski slopes. See 33-44-102, 9 C.R.S. (1997). In 1990 amendments to the Ski Safety Act, the legislature limited the liability of ski area operators for accidents on the slopes involving the “inherent dangers and risks of skiing.” See ch. 256, sec. 7, 33-44-112, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1543; see also ch. 256, sec. 1, Legislative Declaration, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1540; Graven v. Vail Assocs., 909 P.2d 514, 517-18 (Colo. 1995).

[20] Included within the inherent risks of skiing are dangers or conditions that are an “integral part of the sport of skiing,” such as weather, snow conditions, collisions with natural and man-made objects, and terrain variations. See 33-44-103(3.5), 9 C.R.S. (1997). The skier must know the range of his or her ability, ski in control, maintain a proper lookout while skiing, avoid collisions with other skiers, and not use a ski slope or trail or passenger tramway while impaired by alcohol or other controlled substances. See 33-44-109, 9 C.R.S. (1997). The statute provides that “no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.” 33-44-112, 9 C.R.S. (1997). See also Graven, 909 P.2d at 518-21.

[21] For their part, ski area operators must maintain a sign system, including signs indicating the level of difficulty of the area’s slopes and trails, notices that warn of danger areas, closed trails, and ski area boundaries, and the marking of man-made structures that are not readily visible to skiers. See 33-44-107, 9 C.R.S. (1997). They must undertake safety precautions related to the operation of equipment such as snowmobiles and motorized snow-grooming vehicles on slopes and trails within ski area boundaries. See 33-44-108, 9 C.R.S. (1997).

[22] The Ski Safety Act also addresses aspects of ski lift operation through several provisions which regulate passenger conduct. Passengers must have sufficient physical dexterity to use a lift safely and are required to observe certain conduct when embarking, riding, and disembarking a ski lift. See 33-44-105, 9 C.R.S. (1997). They may not move outside designated areas, throw objects from the tramway, engage in conduct that could cause injury to others, or disobey instructions from the ski area operator. See id. On the other hand, ski area operators must maintain a sign system including specific instructions such as “Keep Ski Tips Up,” and “Unload Here.” See 33-44-106, 9 C.R.S. (1997).

[23] Any violation of the statute’s provisions applicable to skiers constitutes negligence on their part; in tandem, any violations by a ski area operator of the Ski Safety Act or the Tramway Act constitute negligence as to them. See 33-44-104, 9 C.R.S. (1997). The effect of these statutory provisions is to make violations of the Ski Safety Act and/or Tramway Act negligence per se.

C.

[24] Effect Of The Tramway Act And The Ski Safety Act On The Degree Of Care Applicable To Ski Lift Operators

[25] Of controlling significance in answering the certified questions of law is that we infer no abrogation of a common law right of action absent clear legislative intent. See Vaughan v. McMinn, 945 P.2d 404, 408 (Colo. 1997); Farmers Group, Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419, 423 (Colo. 1991). If the legislature wishes to abrogate rights that would otherwise be available under the common law, it must manifest its intent “expressly or by clear implication.” McMinn, 945 P.2d at 408.

[26] Crested Butte contends, and the federal district court determined, that the legislature has replaced the high standard we announced in Bagnoli with a standard of ordinary care. In arguing for a duty of care lesser than the highest degree, Crested Butte relies on the 1965 provision in the Tramway Act exempting ski lifts from laws of the state applicable to “common carriers.” It also argues, in the alternative, that the “legislature’s enactment of a comprehensive statutory and regulatory scheme for safety requirements at ski areas manifests the intent to preempt the field of common law liability, especially where the claim is that a particular safety device was not installed on a lift.”

[27] To the contrary, we conclude that the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act, together with the Bagnoli standard of care, provide a comprehensive Colorado framework which preserves ski lift common law negligence actions, while at the same time limiting skier suits for inherent dangers on the slopes and defining per se negligence for violation of statutory and regulatory requirements.

1.

[28] The Common Carrier Provision Of The Tramway Act [29] The Tramway Act states that Provisions in lieu of others. The provisions for regulation, registration, and licensing of passenger tramways and the area operators thereof under this part 7 shall be in lieu of all other regulations or registration, or licensing requirements, and passenger tramways shall not be construed to be common carriers within the meaning of the laws of this state.

[30] 25-5-717, 8 C.R.S. (1997) (emphasis added.)[fn6]

[31] We must read and interpret statutory language in its context. See 2-4-101, 1 C.R.S. (1997) (“Words and phrases shall be read in context.”). The phrase concerning common carriers in section 25-5-717 is an integral part of a provision dealing with regulation, registration, and licensing of passenger tramways. Its evident purpose in the context of the “meaning of the laws of this state” is to prohibit any board or agency, other than the Tramway Board, from registering, regulating, or licensing ski lifts. For example, ski lifts are not to be considered common carriers subject to Public Utilities Commission (PUC) jurisdiction. Without this provision, ski lifts arguably would have been under the very broad statutory definition of “common carriers” for regulatory purposes. See 40-1-102(3)(a)(I), 11 C.R.S. (1997).[fn7]

[32] We did not rely in Bagnoli on the notion that ski lift operators are common carriers when enunciating the applicable standard of care. Rather, we applied the Lewis factors to ski lift operators because of the degree of control they exercise over passengers, the relative powerlessness of a passenger to secure his or her own safety under the circumstances, and the consequent state of dependence and trust which a passenger must place in the lift operators. In Lewis, we said It is not important whether defendants were serving as a carrier or engaged in activities for amusement. The important factors are, the plaintiffs had surrendered themselves to the care and custody of the defendants; they had given up their freedom of movement and actions; there was nothing they could do to cause or prevent the accident. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants had exclusive possession and control of the facilities used in the conduct of their business and they should be held to the highest degree of care.

[33] Lewis, 156 Colo. at 57, 396 P.2d at 939 (emphasis added). One of the justices vigorously dissented as to the degree of care expected, on the basis that “this is not a `carrier case.'” Id. at 72, 396 P.2d at 947 (McWilliams, C.J., dissenting).

[34] In Bagnoli, we nevertheless adhered to the basic proposition that enunciating the degree of care to be exercised depends on the danger and degree of responsibility involved. We emphasized that the duty in negligence actions “remains one of exercising due care, and due care depends upon the attendant circumstances.” 166 Colo. at 38-39, 441 P.2d at 664 (emphasis added). We held that the attendant circumstances of ski lift operation, like amusement rides, demand the highest degree of care. We pointed out that other jurisdictions had imposed on ski lift operators a common carrier status in requiring the higher duty of care, but that, in Colorado, common carrier status made no difference in this regard in light of the Lewis factors. See Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 39-40, 441 P.2d at 664.[fn8] Thus, in Bagnoli, we held that a Colorado jury instruction need not designate a ski lift operator as a common carrier. Because of the existence of the above described rule of Lewis, supra, and the nature and purpose of our statutes pertaining to common carriers at the time of this accident, there was no need to designate the ski lift operator as a common carrier in Instruction No. 15.

[35] Id. We said that the inclusion of the “common carrier” description in the actual instruction delivered to the jury in Bagnoli was of no consequence, since the paramount purpose of Instruction No. 15 was to convey to the jury the rule of law that a chair ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation of the ski lift.

[36] Id., 441 P.2d at 664-65 (emphasis added).

[37] Thus, while common carriers may be required to exercise the highest degree of care towards their passengers, it does not follow that transport device operators who are not classified as common carriers are dispensed from exercising the highest degree of care when the attendant circumstances warrant such caution.

2.

[38] Legislative Action Subsequent To Bagnoli

[39] The legislature has carefully chosen how to let stand, supplement, or limit application of the common law in the arena of ski safety; it has chosen not to alter the standard of care applicable to ski lift safety. In 1990, the General Assembly limited the liability of ski area operators for claims involving the inherent dangers and risks of skiing. However, the amendments expressly prevent ski lift operators from claiming that the limitation on a ski area’s liability applies to causes of action arising from ski lift accidents. See 33-44-103(3.5), 33-44-112, 9 C.R.S. (1997).[fn9] As further confirmation of the intent to exclude ski lift accidents from the liability limitations, the bill’s chief sponsor, Representative Scott McInnis, testified that the 1990 amendments to the Ski Safety Act would not affect common law tort liability as it related to ski lifts: “This bill does not exclude a ski area from negligence and the liability it faces with ski lifts.” House floor debate on S.B. 80, Mar. 21, 1990.

[40] Another example of the General Assembly’s careful distinctions between ski slope and ski lift accident liability is found in section 33-44-113. This provision limits the amount of damages recoverable from a ski lift operator for accidents that occur while skiing but specifically excludes damages “associated with an injury occurring to a passenger while riding on a passenger tramway.” 33-44-113, 9 C.R.S. (1997).[fn10] Thus, in both a limitation of liability provision and in a limitation of damages provision related to skiing, the General Assembly chose to write an exception preserving the liability and damages law applicable to ski lift accidents.

[41] The legislature has amended the Tramway Act eleven times since the Bagnoli decision: in 1973, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1991 and 1993.[fn11] None of those amendments altered the ski lift operator liability rules or shifted to the Tramway Board the operator’s “primary responsibility for design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection.” 25-5-705, 8 C.R.S. (1997). The Ski Safety Act was passed in 1979[fn12] and substantively amended in 1990,[fn13] with cross references being made to the Tramway Act. The General Assembly did not choose to overrule Bagnoli on either of these occasions.

3.

[42] Statutory Preemption Of Common Law Causes Of Action And Standards Of Care

[43] Crested Butte further suggests that the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act together manifest the legislature’s intent to preempt the field of ski lift safety and, thus, abrogate common law negligence actions and/or the applicable standard of care. Crested Butte insists that the following provisions, which make violations of the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act negligence per se, replace common law liability except as provided therein

Negligence — civil actions. . . .

(2) A violation by a ski area operator of any requirement of this article or any rule or regulation promulgated by the passenger tramway safety board pursuant to section 25-5-704(1)(a), C.R.S., shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of such operator.

[44] 33-44-104(2), 9 C.R.S. (1997) (emphasis added), and, Inconsistent law or statute. Insofar as any provision of law or statute is inconsistent with the provisions of this article, this article controls.

[45] 33-44-114, 9 C.R.S. (1997).

[46] We disagree with Crested Butte’s proposed construction of these provisions. In section 33-44-104(2),[fn14] the legislature determined that any violation of the Tramway Act, or Board regulations, would constitute negligence for purposes of a tort suit based on an alleged violation. A statutory provision which defines violation of a statute or rule as negligence per se is not necessarily inconsistent with maintenance of a common law negligence action, and the creation of a statutory remedy does not bar preexisting common law rights of action, in the absence of clear legislative intent to negate the common law right. See McMinn, 945 P.2d at 408; see also Trigg v. City & County of Denver, 784 F.2d 1058, 1059-60 (10th Cir. 1986) (in ski lift accident case, both common law negligence and negligence per se Colorado jury instructions may be required, if justified by sufficient evidence). We conclude that section 33-44-104(2) demonstrates no indication that the legislature wished to bar, rather than supplement, common law actions in ski lift cases.

[47] Crested Butte contends that the Tramway Act’s provisions (1) establishing a Board to “assure that . . . accepted safety devices . . . are provided for,” see 25-5-701, 8 C.R.S. (1997), and (2) empowering the Board to “establish reasonable standards of design and operational practices,” see 25-5-709, 8 C.R.S. (1997), necessarily imply that the General Assembly intended to preempt the field of common law liability in ski lift cases. See Lunsford v. Western States Life Ins., 908 P.2d 79, 87 (Colo. 1995) (stating that “resort to common law principles is preempted regarding issues to which the . . . statute expressly applies or where there are other pertinent statutory provisions. However, if the . . . statute is inapplicable and no other applicable statutes exist, we will rely on the common law”).

[48] The primary responsibility for design and operation of a ski lift rests with the operator. The standards adopted by the Board are intended to be reasonable regulatory standards, not to comprise the operator’s sole duty in regard to passenger safety. Compliance with these standards is evidence of due care but not conclusive evidence.

[49] In our electricity cases, for example, we have explained that regulatory standards for the safe operation of a dangerous instrumentality do not preclude a finding of negligence under the common law. For example, in City of Fountain v. Gast, 904 P.2d 478, 480 (Colo. 1995), and Yampa Valley Electric v. Telecky, 862 P.2d 252, 257-58 (Colo. 1993), we held that, despite the existence of comprehensive National Electric Safety Code standards for the industry, a person may maintain a negligence action against a utility for breach of a common law duty of care. In this state, electric utilities must exercise the highest degree of care to protect the public. See Gast, 904 P.2d at 480.

[50] Evidence of a defendant’s compliance with industry standards, while relevant and admissible for determining whether the defendant breached its duty of care, is not conclusive evidence of due care. See Telecky, 862 P.2d at 257 (compliance with NESC standards is only a part of the determination that the jury was required to make); see also Gast, 904 P.2d at 480 (compliance with NESC standards does not conclusively establish that the highest degree of care was exercised, but is merely one factor to be considered in determining the highest degree of skill and care); Blueflame Gas v. Van Hoose, 679 P.2d 579, 591 (Colo. 1984) (compliance with an administrative safety regulation by propane supplier does not conclusively establish that the highest degree of care was exercised, but is merely one circumstance to be considered).[fn15]

[51] Although the Restatement (Second) of Torts does not have the force of law, we may look to it as a summary of guiding legal principles. The Restatement (Second) of Torts 288C (1965), supports our conclusion that additional tort remedies remain available despite statutory regulation of an industry “Compliance with a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation does not prevent a finding of negligence where a reasonable man would take additional precautions.” In the comment to this section, the Restatement explains that, “Where a statute, ordinance or regulation is found to define a standard of conduct . . . the standard defined is normally a minimum standard, applicable to the ordinary situations contemplated by the legislation. This legislative or administrative minimum does not prevent a finding that a reasonable man would have taken additional precautions where the situation is such as to call for them.” Id. 288C, cmt. a.

[52] We reject Crested Butte’s argument that section 285 rather than section 288C of the Restatement should assist our reasoning in this case. Section 285 states that the determination of the standard of conduct of a reasonable person applicable to a given case may be: (a) established by a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which so provides; or (b) adopted by the court from a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which does not so provide; or (c) established by judicial decision; or (d) applied to the facts of the case by the trial judge or the jury if there is no such enactment, regulation, or decision. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 285 (1965).

[53] Crested Butte’s analysis fails to account for the logic of section 288C, which states that a standard of conduct defined by statute, ordinance, or regulation as described in section 285 is normally a “minimum standard,” and does not prevent a finding that a reasonable person would have taken additional precautions when the situation requires. Id. 288C.

[54] If Crested Butte could point to some part of the Tramway Board’s statutes or regulations which prohibits it from taking additional safety precautions, or a patent conflict preventing utilization of a particular safety device under the circumstances, its argument that Board standards preempt common law negligence actions might have merit. For example, in Jefferson County School District R-1 v. Gilbert, 725 P.2d 774, 778-79 (Colo. 1986), we held that a city met its duty of care to make streets safe because it met engineering standards prescribed by statute; the statute specifically prohibited the city from installing a traffic signal unless an intersection met certain criteria. Thus, we held that the city did not have a duty to install traffic devices where the statute specifically prohibited the city from installing them except under certain conditions. Here, although the Board required restraining devices during summer operation and not winter, its regulations did not prohibit operation with restraining devices during winter operation.

[55] Crested Butte also asserts that the Bagnoli standard, if it still applies, should be limited to ski lift negligence actions based on operational errors or defects in equipment and not to design of the lift. Although the facts in Bagnoli related to operation of the lift in the loading procedure and not the design of the lift, section 25-5-705 of the Tramway Act affirms the ski lift operator’s primary responsibility for “design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection,” without restriction to the season of operation. The General Assembly has not stated in this regard that the operator’s duty is limited to exercising ordinary care. The Lewis and Bagnoli factors are applicable to each of these components of ski lift safety, and we hold that the ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care in regard to each.

[56] A differential standard between operation and design could discourage lift operators from adopting safer designs. Operators would be held to Bagnoli’s higher standard when operating with new safety devices, but a lower standard when choosing to stay with existing equipment. Adoption of Crested Butte’s argument that the Tramway Act and Ski Safety Act preempt common law liability would entail no responsibility on the part of ski operators to ensure safe design, other than to comply with the Board’s regulations. This notion is contrary to the legislature’s intent in assigning the primary responsibility for design to the operators, as well as contrary to a fundamental precept of tort law — that conduct adverse to evolving safety norms should not be rewarded. See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 33, at 194-95 (5th ed. 1984).

III.

[57] Answers To Certified Questions

[58] The Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act do not contain express language or a clear implication to preempt common law actions or the standard of care for ski lift accident cases; rather, they evidence the opposite implication. The legislature’s intent in the Tramway Act is to “assist in safeguarding life, health, property, and the welfare of this state.” See 25-5-701, 8 C.R.S. (1997) (emphasis added). “The primary responsibility for design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection rests with the area operators of passenger tramway devices.” 25-5-705, 8 C.R.S. (1997). In the context of common law actions, our role has been to enunciate the degree of care which ski lift operators must exercise. Ordinary care is not applicable; the factors of passenger safety and operator control attendant to operation of a ski lift require the operator to exercise the highest degree of care. The legislature, despite numerous occasions in the adoption and amendment of the two acts, has not altered the applicability of the Bagnoli standard.

[59] We therefore answer the certified questions as follows: we hold that the standard of care applicable to ski lift operators in Colorado for the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and inspection of a ski lift, is the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation of the lift. Neither the Tramway Act nor the Ski Safety Act preempt or otherwise supersede this standard of care, whatever the season of operation.

[60] JUSTICE KOURLIS dissents, and CHIEF JUSTICE VOLLACK joins in the dissent.

[fn1] Of course, we do not determine whether Crested Butte breached its duty of care or any other issue remaining in the federal court litigation.

[fn2] Decided after passage of the Tramway Act based on an accident occurring before its passage, Bagnoli has been the law of Colorado for the last 30 years. The Colorado Jury Instructions include the following summary of its holding

12:13 AMUSEMENT DEVICES AND SKI LIFTS DUTY OF CARE WHERE USER LACKS FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT It is the duty of the (owner)(operator) of an (amusement device)(ski lift) to exercise the highest degree of care a reasonably careful person could exercise under the same or similar circumstances, in keeping with the practical operation of such a device, for the safety of any person using the device with the (owner’s)(operator’s) express or implied permission.

The failure to exercise such care is negligence. CJI-Civ 3d

12:13 at 98. This instruction is used in ski lift and amusement ride cases and for “those kinds of devices which, to use, the user is required to give up his or her freedom of movement and control of the situation and submit him or herself to the control of the operator.” Id. at 99. The Instruction’s “Notes on Use” state that neither the Passenger Tramway Safety Act nor the Ski Safety and Liability Act changed the applicability of the instruction to ski lifts, except that a negligence per se instruction will be used in cases involving a violation of the Ski Safety Act or regulations of the Board. See id. Although the content of a Colorado Jury Instruction is not legally definitive, its long and common usage is persuasive on the matter of being a correct summary of the law. See Wade v. Olinger Life Ins. Co., 192 Colo. 401, 409 n. 7, 560 P.2d 446, 452 n. 7 (1977). [fn3] A passenger tramway is “a device used to transport passengers uphill on skis, 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.” 25-5-702(4), 8 C.R.S. (1997).

[fn4] The Board is comprised of one member representing the U.S. Forest Service and six members appointed by the governor, two representing the ski industry, two representing the public at large, and two members with experience in the tramway industry, to regulate passenger tramway devices. See 25-5-703, 8 C.R.S. (1997).

[fn5] The power and duties of the tramway board were specifically enumerated and reorganized into separate sections in the 1993 amendments to the tramway act. See ch. 267, secs. 7-8, 25-5-704 to -719, 1993 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1536-44.

[fn6] Section 25-5-718 was repealed and recodified as section 25-5-717 by the 1993 amendments to the Tramway Act. See ch. 267, sec. 8, 1993 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1538 & 1543. The provisions are nearly identical, and we refer to the most recent codification.

[fn7] “Common carrier” is defined in the public utilities statute as: “Every person directly or indirectly affording a means of transportation, or any service or facility in connection therewith, within this state by motor vehicle, aircraft, or other vehicle whatever by indiscriminately accepting and carrying for compensation passengers between fixed points or over established routes or otherwise . . . .” 40-1-102(3)(a)(I), 11 C.R.S. (1997).

[fn8] Courts in other jurisdictions have addressed the issue of the duty of care owed by ski lift operators, with widely varying results. Some jurisdictions have stated that ski lifts constitute common carriers for purposes of tort liability. See Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 897, 900 (Cal.App. 1992) (ski lift is a common carrier for tort purposes); D’Amico v. Great American Recreation, Inc. 627 A.2d 1164, 1166 (N.J. Super. Law Div. 1992) (ski area operators are common carriers in the operation of ski lifts). But see McDaniel v. Dowell, 26 Cal. Rptr. 140 (Cal.App. 1962) (rope tow not a common carrier for tort liability purposes).

Whether or not they considered ski lifts to be common carriers, courts have differed as to the degree of care ski lift operators must exercise. Some states require the highest degree of care commensurate with a ski lift’s practical operation, see Hunt v. Sun Valley Co., 561 F.2d 744, 746 (9th Cir. 1977) (applying Idaho law); Fisher v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 283 F.2d 533, 534 (2d Cir. 1960) (applying Vermont law); D’Amico, 627 A.2d at 1166-67; Squaw Valley, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d at 899-900, and other states require only ordinary care, see Pessl v. Bridger Bowl, 524 P.2d 1101, 1107 (Mont. 1974); Bolduc v. Herbert Schneider Corp., 374 A.2d 1187 (N.H. 1977); Friedman v. State, 282 N.Y.S.2d 858, 860 (Ct. Cl. 1967).

The question of the degree of care owed by ski lift operators to passengers is grounded in the common law and statutes particular to each state. We look to Colorado law as the basis for our determination that the highest degree of care applies to ski lift operators in this state.

[fn9] Section 33-44-103(3.5) provides in pertinent part:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of the ski area operator for injury caused by the use or operation of ski lifts.

[fn10] Section 33-44-113 provides:

The total amount of damages which may be recovered from a ski area operator by a skier who uses a ski area for the purpose of skiing or for the purpose of sliding downhill on snow or ice on skis, a toboggan, a sled, a tube, a ski-bob, a snowboard, or any other device and who is injured, excluding those associated with an injury occurring to a passenger while riding on a passenger tramway, shall not exceed one million dollars, present value, including any derivative claim by any other claimant, which shall not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars, present value, and including any claim attributable to noneconomic loss or injury, as defined in sections 13-21-102.5(2) C.R.S., whether past damages, future damages, or a combination of both, which shall not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

(Emphasis added.)

[fn11] See ch. 395, sec. 29, 66-25-9, 1973 Colo. Sess. Laws 1373; ch. 126, secs. 1-10, 1976 Colo. Sess. Laws 660-63; ch. 354, secs. 1-16, 1977 Colo. Sess. Laws 1288-92; ch. 433, secs. 120-122, 25-5-708 to -710, 1979 Colo. Sess. Laws 1661; ch. 315, secs. 1-7, 1983 Colo. Sess. Laws 1071-73; ch. 101, sec. 23, 25-5-717, 1985 Colo. Sess. Laws 411; ch. 193, secs. 1-10, 1986 Colo. Sess. Laws 974-78; ch. 172, sec. 83, 25-5-710, 1987 Colo. Sess. Laws 971; ch. 36, sec. 11, 25-5-710, 1988 Colo. Sess. Laws 317; ch. 301, sec. 40, 25-5-710, 1991 Colo. Sess. Laws 1917-18; ch. 267, secs. 1-11, 1993 Colo. Sess. Laws 1532-44.

[fn12] See ch. 323, secs. 1-3, 1979 Colo. Sess. Laws 1237-44.

[fn13] See ch. 256, secs. 1-11, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws 1540-44.

[fn14] Section 33-44-104(2) was amended in 1994 to refer to section 25-5-704(1)(a) of the Tramway Act instead of section 25-5-710(1)(a) because of the 1993 amendments to the Tramway Act. See ch. 276, sec. 74, 33-44-104, 1994 Colo. Sess. Laws, 1644. Because the substance of the section is the same, we refer to the most recent codification.

[fn15] In Pizza v. Wolf Creek Ski Development Corp., 711 P.2d 671, 683 (Colo. 1985), before the 1990 amendments to the Ski Safety Act, we noted that the risks associated with skiing do not rise to the level of those associated with supplying electricity, operating amusement devices, and selling propane gas. However, in that case we were speaking to the dangers associated with skiing — such as variations in terrain, which skiers can guard against — and not the dangers related to the operation of ski lifts. See id. Rather, we stated in Bagnoli that the risks associated with operating ski lifts are much like those associated with operating amusement rides and based our conclusion regarding the applicable degree of care on the same factors we discussed in Lewis. See Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 40, 441 P.2d at 664.

[61] JUSTICE KOURLIS dissenting

[62] Because I do not believe that the common carrier standard of care enunciated in Summit County Development Corp. v. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. 27, 33, 441 P.2d 658, 661 (1968), survives the General Assembly’s express pronouncements in the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Act (Tramway Act) and the Colorado Ski Safety and Liability Act (Ski Safety Act), I respectfully dissent.

I.

[63] The issues certified to this court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit are: (1) what standard of care governs the duty owed by ski lift operators in Colorado to winter season lift users; and (2) does the Tramway Act and/or the Ski [Safety] Act preempt or otherwise supersede the preexisting Colorado common law standard of care governing the duty owed by ski lift operators to users of those lifts in the winter season? I would answer the second question affirmatively, and clarify that the standard of care applicable to ski lift operators is one of ordinary negligence, as provided in the two Acts.

II.

[64] The plaintiff in this case, Eric Bayer, asks Crested Butte to insure him from injury while riding a ski lift, whether or not such injury was occasioned by negligence through mechanical, design or operational failure of the ski lift. Eric Bayer became unconscious and fell from the lift he was riding at Crested Butte ski area incurring severe injury. Bayer claims that Crested Butte had a duty to exercise “the highest degree of care,” and that such level of care would have required the installation of a restraining device on the lift from which he fell. He asserts no other wrongful action or omission by Crested Butte. Bayer concedes that the majority of ski lifts in Colorado do not have restraining devices and are certified for operation without them by the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (Safety Board). He also concedes that no statute, rule or regulation requires lifts to be equipped with such devices for winter operation. The federal district court granted summary judgment to Crested Butte, ruling that the applicable standard of care was reasonable care and that Crested Butte had exercised such reasonable care in the installation of the lift. On appeal, Bayer continues to argue that under Bagnoli, Crested Butte should be held to a higher standard of care than ordinary negligence. In my view, Bagnoli has no continuing life in light of intervening legislation; and the appropriate standard of care is ordinary and reasonable care.

III.

[65] In Bagnoli, this court determined that a lift operator was a “common carrier” with respect to the plaintiff and therefore owed the plaintiff “the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation of the chairlift.” Id. at 33, 441 P.2d at 661.

[66] The higher standard of care imposed in Bagnoli has traditionally been reserved for inherently dangerous activities. See Federal Ins. Co. v. Public Serv. Co., 194 Colo. 107, 111-12, 570 P.2d 239, 241-42 (1977). Ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities warrant a rule of strict liability. See Western Stock Ctr., Inc. v. Sevit, Inc., 195 Colo. 372, 379, 578 P.2d 1045, 1050 (1978).

[67] The law has held common carriers to the higher standard of care, even though their activities are not necessarily inherently dangerous. The rationale for that higher standard arose out of their acceptance of an unusual responsibility to the public. See William L. Prosser, The Law of Torts 184 (3d ed. 1964). Additionally, burden of proof considerations played a role in the analysis, based upon the fact that a passenger on a mode of transport for hire is not familiar with the instrumentalities and appliances used for transportation and would be disadvantaged if required to prove the specific cause of the accident. See Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Fotheringham, 17 Colo. App. 410, 68 P. 978 (1902).

[68] The common carrier standard of care was initially rejected by this court in Hook v. Lakeside Park Co., 142 Colo. 277, 351 P.2d 261 (1960), as applied to amusement park devices on the theory that the “presumptions or inferences available to a passenger in an action against a carrier are not available” in an amusement park setting. Hook, 142 Colo. 283, 351 P.2d at 265.

[69] The court revisited the issue in Lewis v. Buckskin Joe’s Inc., 156 Colo. 46, 396 P.2d 933 (1964), and concluded that amusement park devices should be treated as common carriers[fn1] because “the plaintiffs had surrendered themselves to the care and custody of the defendants; they had given up their freedom of movement and actions; there was nothing they could do to cause or prevent the accident. Under the circumstances of the case, the defendants had exclusive possession and control of the facilities used in the conduct of their business.” Id. at 56-57, 396 P.2d at 939. Three members of the Lewis court dissented on that point, distinguishing common carriers from recreational providers.

[70] If, indeed, a higher standard of care evolves primarily out of either an inherently dangerous activity or out of a common carrier status, clearly the court in Lewis was

relying upon the common carrier analysis, not a conclusion that amusement park devices are inherently dangerous.

[71] And thus, the court came to Bagnoli. In Bagnoli, the court noted that not all of the factors present in Lewis similarly applied to Bagnoli, but concluded nonetheless that Summit County Development Corporation was a common carrier and, as such, owed the plaintiff the highest degree of care. The court cited various other states that had similarly imposed a common carrier status on ski lift operators.

[72] The Bagnoli rationale turned on the common carrier status of the defendant. The court declared that a “ski lift facility, like other transportation facilities, and like the stagecoach amusement ride in Lewis, requires the operator to exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with its practical operation.” Bagnoli, 166 Colo. at 40, 441 P.2d at 664.

[73] However, after we decided Bagnoli, the legislative landscape changed around the nation, including in Colorado. The chronology reflects that courts initially defined ski lifts as common carriers, and thereby activated a higher standard of care. Many legislatures, like Colorado’s General Assembly, then chose to act and declared that passenger tramways are not common carriers. Following legislative pronouncements that ski lifts were not to be treated as common carriers, other states have retreated from a determination that a higher standard of care applies.

[74] For example, in Pessl v. Bridger Bowl, 524 P.2d 1101 (Mont. 1974), the Montana Supreme Court concluded that the duty of care owed by ski lift operators in Montana was one of reasonable and ordinary care because of the enactment of Montana’s Passenger Tramway Act which, in pertinent part, parallels the Tramway Act before us today.[fn2] See Pessl, 524 P.2d at 1107. See also Bolduc v. Herbert Schneider Corp., 374 A.2d 1187 (N.H. 1977)(holding same as Pessl, and recognizing that states adopting such statutes typically did so in response to court decisions which imposed a higher degree of care); D’Amico v. Great American Recreation, Inc., 627 A.2d 1164 (N.J. 1992)(applying highest degree of care because New Jersey’s ski safety act did not include language exempting operators from common carrier status); Albert v. State, 362 N.Y.S.2d 341 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1974)(finding that chairlift operators are not common carriers under similarly worded N.Y. statute); Friedman v. State, 282 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1967)(same as Albert); Donald M. Zupanec, Annotation, Liability for Injury or Death from Ski Lift, Ski Tow, or Similar Device, 95 A.L.R.3d 203 (1979). The New Hampshire Supreme Court specifically recognized in Bolduc that the legislative decision to remove passenger tramways from common carrier status was in response to court cases like Bagnoli. See Bolduc, 374 A.2d at 1189.

[75] Hence, other courts around the nation have specifically deferred to the legislative determination that passenger tramways may no longer be treated as common carriers. Bagnoli explicitly concludes that lift operators should be treated as common carriers, and such a conclusion is no longer valid. Additionally, the Lewis factors relied upon in Bagnoli cannot stand as an independent basis for the imposition of a higher standard of care unrelated to common carrier status, because they are merely an articulation of the reasons why common carriers are held to a different standard. Those factors cannot stand alone.[fn3] Hence, in my view, the legislature has removed the cornerstone of the foundation upon which Bagnoli rested. As the California Court of Appeal stated in McDaniel v. Dowell, 26 Cal.Rptr. 140, 143 (Dist. Ct. App. 1962), absent classification of a ski lift operation as a common carrier, “[t]here is no other basis for the imposition upon the defendant [] of a duty to exercise the utmost care and diligence for the safety of the plaintiff.”[fn4] IV.

[76] The accident in Bagnoli occurred on April 21, 1962, three years prior to the effective date of the Tramway Act. The court in Bagnoli thus did not apply the Tramway Act even though the actual decision was handed down in 1968, after the Act’s passage.

[77] On July 1, 1965, the following provision of the Tramway Act went into effect The provisions for regulations, registration and licensing of passenger tramways and the operators thereof under this Part 7 shall be in lieu of all other regulations or registration, or licensing requirements, and passenger tramways[fn5] shall not be construed to be common carriers within the meaning of the laws of this state.

[78] 25-5-717, 11A C.R.S. (1989)(emphasis supplied).

[79] In answering the questions before us today, the Majority observes that we infer no abrogation of a common law right of action absent clear legislative intent. Maj. op. at 12. I find just such clear legislative intent apparent in the unambiguous language of the Tramway Act. Crested Butte operates ski lifts. Ski lifts are passenger tramways, and under the Tramway Act passenger tramways “shall not be construed to be common carriers.” 25-5-717, 11A C.R.S. (1989).

[80] The legislature expressly decided that ski lifts were not to be treated as common carriers in Colorado. In addition, the legislature implicitly occupied the field by enacting pervasive and comprehensive legislation for safety requirements regarding ski lifts. See Lunsford v. Western States Life Ins., 908 P.2d 79, 87 (Colo. 1995)(noting that statutory preemption of areas of the common law may arise expressly or by clear implication).

[81] The Tramway Act is comprehensive in its scope of regulation of Colorado ski lifts In order to assist in safeguarding life, health, property and the welfare of this state, it is the policy of the State of Colorado to establish a board empowered to prevent unnecessary mechanical hazards in the operation of ski tows, lifts and tramways and to assure that reasonable design and construction are used for, that accepted safety devices and sufficient personnel are provided for, and that periodic inspections and adjustments are made which are deemed essential to the safe operations of ski tows, ski lifts and passenger tramways.

[82] 25-5-701, 11A C.R.S. (1989).[fn6]

[83] The Tramway Act further authorizes the Safety Board to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations relating to public safety in the design standards, construction, operation and maintenance of passenger tramways.” 25-5-710(a), 11A C.R.S. (1989). The Tramway Act directs the Safety Board to use general guidelines and standards adopted by the American Standards Association, Inc., see id.; and the Act makes the Safety Board responsible for establishing “reasonable standards of design and operational practices.” 25-5-710.1, 11A C.R.S. (1989).

[84] In 1979, the legislature expanded the scope of its pronouncements when it enacted the Ski Safety Act.[fn7] The express purpose of that Act was “to establish reasonable safety standards for the operation of ski areas and for skiers using them.” 33-44-102, 14 C.R.S. (1995).

[85] For purposes of the issue before the court, the Ski Safety Act achieves four results. First, it supplements the Tramway Act and further defines the relative rights and responsibilities of ski area operators and skiers. See 33-44-102. Second, it clarifies that negligent operation of a ski lift is not an “inherent risk of skiing.” Id. Third, it provides that a violation by a ski area operator of any portion of the Ski Safety Act or of any rule or regulation promulgated by the Safety Board shall constitute negligence. See 33-44-104(2). Lastly, it includes preemptive language as follows: “Insofar as any provision of law or statute is inconsistent with the provisions of this article, this article controls.” 33-44-114 (emphasis added).

[86] The cumulative effect of those provisions leaves no doubt as to the legislative intent to set forth the governing law concerning ski area liability: both with respect to operation of ski slopes and ski lifts. The Tramway Act removes ski lifts from common carrier status. The Ski Safety Act incorporates the requirements of the Tramway Act and the Safety Board’s regulations and further mandates that inconsistent provisions of the common law are abrogated.

[87] Since the Tramway Act eliminates the elevated common carrier status of ski lift operators as a basis for a higher standard of care, the applicable standard reverts to that of ordinary care. The Tramway Act delegates to the Safety Board the task of establishing reasonable standards of design for ski lifts. The Ski Safety Act warns that failure to comply with any rule or regulation promulgated by the Safety Board shall constitute negligence on the part of the operator. The standard of care owed by ski lift operators to users of those lifts in the winter season is, therefore, ordinary and reasonable care consistent with the rules and regulations of the Safety Board.[fn8] [88] Indeed, not only should this court accede to legislative mandate, but additionally the fixing of an elevated standard of care is without basis in fact or law once the common carrier status rationale is eliminated.

V.

[89] In the absence of statutory edict, the courts must develop the common law. However, the General Assembly retains the authority to repeal common law rights or duties. See 2-4-211, 1 C.R.S (1997). In determining whether a legislative enactment serves to supplement the common law, or to repeal it, the courts have rightfully proceeded with caution. However, the principle of statutory construction that statutes in derogation of the common law must be narrowly construed should never be invoked to defeat the plain and clear intent of the legislature. See Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. RE-1, 841 P.2d 237, 251-52 (Colo. 1992). Legislative intent that is clearly expressed must be given effect. See Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. Keelan, 840 P.2d 1070, 1076 (Colo. 1992)(finding a clear intent by the General Assembly to change the common law rule and require damages to be set off by certain non-exempt collateral source contributions); Pigford v. People, 197 Colo. 358, 360, 593 P.2d 354, 356 (1979)(noting a clear statement of legislative intent to change the common law in order to permit admissibility of certain prior offenses in criminal prosecutions for unlawful sexual behavior).

[90] When the legislature overrules a court decision that does not involve a constitutional issue, the court must comply with the legislative direction. “It is not within the purview of this court to question the legislature’s choice of policy.” City of Montrose v. Public Utils. Comm’n, 732 P.2d 1181, 1193 (Colo. 1987)(recognizing that legislature effectively overruled City of Montrose v. Public Utils. Comm’n, 197 Colo. 119, 590 P.2d 502 (1979), with respect to the means by which a utility was permitted to surcharge municipal fees).

[91] It is my view that the Majority is, indeed, declining to recognize the appropriate exercise of legislative authority and policy-making in defining the standard of care applicable to ski lift operators. Hence, I respectfully dissent.

[92] I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE VOLLACK joins in this dissent.

[fn1] At pages 15-16, the Majority includes a reference from Bagnoli, citing Lewis, to the effect that the actual common carrier status was not important. In fact, the Lewis language was merely clarifying that it was not important to distinguish between a stagecoach “prepared and maintained by the defendant for the carriage or amusement of those who pay the required fee.” Lewis, 156 Colo. at 56, 396 P.2d at 939 (emphasis in original).

[fn2] The Montana court also noted that Montana cases had rejected the analogy between a passenger of a common carrier for hire and a patron of an amusement place. See Pessl, 524 P.2d at 1106.

[fn3] There is an inference in some of the cases, including Hook, that amusement park devices are inherently dangerous and, thus, possibly deserving of a higher standard of care on that basis. This court has expressly rejected this rationale for ski area operators. See Pizza v. Wolf Creek, 711 P.2d 671, 683 (Colo. 1985)(expressly rejecting analogy comparing operating a ski area to inherently dangerous activities).

[fn4] The California court was concerned with whether a rope tow should be classified as a common carrier, and concluded that it should not. The court was not addressing the import of a statute, because at that time, California had no passenger tramway act.

[fn5] A “passenger tramway” is defined as “a device used to transport passengers uphill on skis 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.” 25-5-702(4), 11A C.R.S. (1989).

[fn6] I also note that emergency shutdown of a passenger tramway is justified only if the lift is shown to be an “unreasonable” hazard, 25-5-716, 11A C.R.S. (1989), lending further credence to the conclusion that the Tramway Act supplants any elevated standard of care and reestablishes an ordinary standard of reasonable care.

[fn7] In 1990, the legislature amended the Ski Safety Act to clarify the law regarding the duties and responsibilities of skiers and ski area operators and to provide additional protection for ski area operators. See Graven v. Vail Assocs., 909 P.2d 514, 517, 517 n. 3, 524 n. 4 (Colo. 1995). None of the 1990 amendments impact upon the question before us today, although they do further display the legislative intent to limit the causes of action available to skiers against ski areas.

[fn8] I do not believe that the “highest standard of care” is applicable to ski lift operators in the wake of the Tramway Act and the Ski Safety Act. Therefore, I do not reach the question of the interrelationship between compliance with the statutory and regulatory standards and that elevated standard of care. (Maj. op at 24-28). Further, I do not believe the question is before us as to whether evidence in addition to compliance with applicable standards and regulations should be adduced on the issue of negligence. In answering certified questions, the court should be brief and confine itself to the precise questions propounded. See In re Interrogatories of the U.S. District Court, 642 P.2d 496, 497 (Colo. 1982).

Advertisements

New Jersey decision explains the reasoning why ski areas owe the highest degree of care to people riding chairlifts.

Chair lifts are to be operated under the common carrier standard of care by ski areas in New Jersey.

D’Amico, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., 265 N.J. Super. 496; 627 A.2d 1164; 1992 N.J. Super. LEXIS 499

State: New Jersey

Plaintiff: Kathleen A. D’Amico and Allen N. D’Amico

Defendant: Great American Recreation, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: negligent in its operation and supervision of the ski lift

Defendant Defenses:

Holding: for the plaintiff

Year: 1992

The facts don’t lend themselves to what you would normally think as a chairlift accident. However, the decision explains in easy detail why the court requires the operator of a chairlift to operate it at the highest degree of care for the riders.

The plaintiff was in line to ride the chairlift. When she was next to board, another skier, skied into the path of the chair. The intervening skier hit the chair the plaintiff was to ride making the chair swing and hitting the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered injuries from being hit by the chair.

The plaintiff and her husband sued. Prior to trial, the plaintiff moved for a motion in limine determining the standard of care of a ski area to riders of a chairlift. This decision is the result of that motion.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The court looked at decisions from all the other states where the question had been answered. What is the duty of care owed by an operator of a chair lift to a passenger.

At the time of this decision, most other states that had looked into the issue had determined that the standard of care was that of a common carrier. A common carrier is required to exercise the highest degree of care to is passengers.

A passenger of a common carrier places himself in the care of that common carrier. A passenger is unable to use his own faculties in order to prevent or avoid accidents and is forced to rely on the common carrier to ensure that accidents are avoided.  The carrier has this responsibility because they exercise control of the equipment used in the transportation of the passenger. Only the carrier can ensure that the equipment is in proper working order and is being operated correctly.

Just like a passenger on a train who has no opportunity to ensure that the locomotive is operating properly, a skier cannot determine whether a ski lift is operating properly.  When skiers board a ski lift, they are entrusting their care in the hands of another.  Once they have committed themselves to riding that chair up the mountain, they are powerless to control their own safety.  The chair lifts the skier off the ground as she sits down.  The chair is suspended off the ground at considerable distance.  The skier has no ability to stop the cable from moving.  Furthermore, a skier can’t exit the chair once it has begun  its ascent.  Because of the skier’s helplessness, ski lift operators should be held to the highest standard of care.

The defendant argued it was not a common carrier because it did not hold itself out to the public as a transportation carrier. Also, the transportation provided by the chairlift was incidental to the sport of skiing. However, the court did not buy that argument.

However, skiers come to ski areas to ski. If ski areas did not provide transportation up a mountain, it would be impossible for skiers to ski down the mountain. Transportation of skiers up the mountain is one of the primary functions of a ski area operator.  It is the reason skiers purchase “lift tickets”.

The ski area also argued that the plaintiff was not on the lift when she was injured. However, the court did not agree with this argument either.

The fact that this plaintiff was not physically on the lift when she was injured does not help defendant. The duty of care of a common carrier includes providing a safe means of ingress and egress for its passengers.

The court summed up its analysis.

Based upon the applicable well-reasoned decisions from other jurisdictions and the analysis set forth above, this court holds that ski area operators are common carriers in the operation of ski lifts. It is, of course, within the power of the Legislature to follow the examples of New York and New Hampshire and amend existing law to exclude ski lift operators from common carrier liability.  Great American Recreation will be held to the standard of care applicable to other types of common carriers in the operation of its Vernon Valley chairlift. This standard has been de-scribed as the highest possible care consistent with the nature of the undertaking involved.

So Now What?

There were still defenses available to the defendant ski area. The first is the intervening skier. The actions that lead to the injury of the plaintiff were not caused by the ski area but by a third party who intervened, was between the actions of the ski area and the injury to the plaintiff.

However, in New Jersey, from the moment a skier gets on the loading ramp until the skier leaves, the ski area is held to the highest degree of care to riders of its lifts, that of a common carrier.

Don’t know how this applies to lift lines?

clip_image002What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

 

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

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

 

 

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, NJ, New Jersey, Common Carrier, Chair Lift, Ski Area, Highest Degree of Care, Great American Recreation, Loading Area,

 


Question answered; Colorado Premises Liability Act supersedes Colorado Ski Area Safety act. Standard of care owed skiers on chairlift’s reasonable man standard?

Two decisions, if allowed to stand, will change the ski industry immensely. The standard of care owed to a passenger on a chairlift will drop considerably and allow ski areas a defense for the first time. At the same time, it should eliminate lawsuits by people who haven’t or should not be on a chairlift to begin with.

Brigance v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31662

State: Colorado; United States District Court for the District of Colorado

Plaintiff: Teresa Brigance

Defendant: Vail Summit Resorts, Inc.

Plaintiff Claims: for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) negligent supervision/training, (4) negligence (respondeat superior), (5) negligent hiring, and (6) premises liability pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-21-115

Defendant Defenses: Colorado Premises Liability Act

Holding: for Defendant in dismissing some of the plaintiff’s claims

Year: 2016

This is another decision in a case that is probably still on going. The decision is a response to motions, there could still be a trial and appeal of all of the issues examined here.

Vail, owner of Keystone Ski Area where this accident occurred was sued for an injury a skier received getting off the lift. The plaintiff was taking a lesson from an instructor, an employee of the ski area. She was instructed on how to load and unload the lift. (I’m guessing she was a beginner based on this statement.) While unloading from the lift the back of her ski boots became wedged under the lip of the chair resulting in an injury to the plaintiff.

(That happens all the time loading a chair lift to me. My boots are high in the back, and a lot of chairs catch them. I can get money for that? I should ski every day and quit this job. Wait, this job doesn’t pay at all!)

The plaintiff sued. Vail filed a motion to dismiss the parts of the complaint and amended complaint of the plaintiff.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The court first looked at Vail’s argument the negligence and negligence per se claims should be dismissed. The court defined a negligence per se claim differentiating it from a negligence claim.

In contrast to negligence, negligence per se occurs when a defendant violates a statute adopted for the public’s safety and the violation proximately causes the plaintiff’s injury.” Plaintiff must also show that the statute was intended to protect against the type of injury the plaintiff suffered and that the plaintiff is a member of the group of persons the statute was intended to protect. If those requirements are met, “then the statute conclusively establishes the defendant’s standard of care and violation of the statute is a breach of [defendant’s] duty.”

Negligence per se occurs when the defendant violates a statute that the defendant was required to follow and the statute was intended to protect the person or the public from injury.

Vail’s argument was the complaint did not identify a specific statute that was violated. The complaint referred to the Colorado Skier Safety Act and the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Act, but not a particular part of either act that was violated.

The Colorado Skier Safety Act and the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Act both allow for negligence per se claims.

Under the Skier Safety Act, “a violation by a ski area operator of any requirement of this article or any rule or regulation promulgated by the passenger tramway safety board pursuant to section 25-5-704(1)(a), C.R.S., shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of such operator.

However, the plaintiff failed to identify the specific part of the statute that was violated by the defendant. Even if an act was identified, the violation of the act must be clearly established by the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, this language does not provide a statutory standard of care which is adequate to support Plaintiff’s claim for negligence per se. This Court has previously held that a claim for negligence per se requires a statute, “the violation of which can be clearly established. In other words, the relevant statute needs to prescribe or proscribe some relatively discrete action.

The negligence per se claims were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to identify the specific act and the specific injury the act was created to prevent.

The next issue was the application of the Colorado Premises Liability Act to the facts. The defendant Vail had argued in an earlier decision (See Colorado Premises Liability Act eliminated common law claims of negligence as well as CO Ski Area Safety Act claims against a landowner.) that the Premises Liability Act preempted the Colorado Skier Safety Act. The same argument was being made here.

The Colorado Premises Liability Act contains the following provision.

In any civil action brought against a landowner by a person who alleges injury occurring while on the real property of another and by reason of the condition of such property, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property, the landowner shall be liable only as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

This provision was further supported in an earlier Colorado Supreme Court decision, Vigil v. Franklin, which held the Premises Liability Act preempted all other types and forms of liability of a landowner. “Ultimately, the Court held that the Premises Liability Act “abrogate[s] the common law with respect to landowner duties.

The common law negligence claim no longer exists against a landowner, is it now a Premises Liability Act claim. This was supported earlier in the Raup decision, (See Colorado Premises Liability Act eliminated common law claims of negligence as well as CO Ski Area Safety Act claims against a landowner.) “…holding that when a common law negligence claim is founded on negligent maintenance of a ski area, such a claim is within the scope of the Premises Liability Act and must be dismissed.”

In this case, the incident occurred on land of the defendant.

Claim One is a common law negligence claim. Plaintiff also alleges that her injury occurred while on the property of Defendant, the admitted landowner. Therefore, the claim would be preempted by the Premises Liability Act if the alleged injury occurred “by reason of the condition of such property, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property.”

The plaintiff argued that a negligence claim survives because of the Defendant’s failure to “maintain a proper distance between the chair and the ground at the unloading point, and/or [failure] to property operate and/or maintain the chair lift.”

However, the court found the plaintiff’s argument actually proved the issue. The incident occurred on the ground.

The alleged failures to maintain the conditions of the property clearly fall under the Premises Liability Act. Furthermore, failing to properly operate the chair lift is an “activity conducted” on the property that also falls under the Premises Liability Act.

The court went further to state the operation of the chair lift occurs on the land, is conducted on the ground that is the Defendants thus it is controlled by the Premises Liability Act.

Consequently, the plaintiff’s negligence claims were against a landowner and were preempted by the Colorado Premises Liability Act.

The final issue before the court was the defendant’s arguments that the claims against the individuals, the liftie and the ski instructor were duplicative in that as employees of the defendant, if proven the defendant was liable anyway. So those claims were the same as the other claims against the defendant Vail and should be dismissed. The court agreed.

So Now What?

The result is that instead of owing a skier on a chair lift the highest degree of care, that of a common carrier, the ski area owes a degree of care set forth to an invitee of a landowner.

13-21-115. Actions against landowners

(3)(c) (I) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (c), an invitee may recover for damages caused by the landowner’s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known.

That degree of care is the unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers which the landowner knew about or should have known about. This standard of care is significantly lower than that of a common carrier.

Again, this case is not over so the results could change!

clip_image002What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

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

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Vail, Keystone, Common Carrier, Landowner, Premises Liability Act, Liftie, Invitee, Chair Lift, Negligence,

 


Brigance v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31662

Brigance v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31662

Teresa Brigance, Plaintiff, v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 15-cv-1394-WJM-NYW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31662

March 11, 2016, Decided

March 11, 2016, Filed

COUNSEL: [*1] For Teresa Brigance, Plaintiff: Trenton Jeffrey Ongert, Bloch & Chapleau, LLC, Denver, CO.

For Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., Defendant: Edward Timothy Walker, Samuel Nathan Shapiro, Vail Resorts Management Company, Legal Department, Broomfield, CO.

JUDGES: William J. Martínez, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: William J. Martínez

OPINION

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Teresa Brigance (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Vail Summit Resorts, Inc. (“Defendant”). This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (“Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 17.) Defendant filed the Motion on August 28, 2015. (Id.) On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Response to the Motion. (ECF No. 27.) Defendant filed its Reply on October 13, 2015. (ECF No. 31.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim in a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The 12(b)(6) standard requires the Court to “assume the truth of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations and view them [*2] in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). In ruling on such a motion, the dispositive inquiry is “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). “Thus, ‘a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

II. BACKGROUND

The following allegations are taken from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). (ECF No. 6.) The Court assumes these allegations to be true for purposes of this motion.

On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff visited the Keystone ski area, which is owned and operated by Defendant. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff participated in a ski lesson which was taught by Megan McKinney, an employee of Defendant. (Id. ¶ 6.) Ms. McKinney instructed Plaintiff on the procedures for getting on and off the chair lift. (Id. ¶ 7.) The chair lift was operated by an unknown chair lift operator who was also an employee of Defendant and whom the Court will refer to as John Doe. (Id. ¶ 26.) While unloading from the chair lift, Plaintiff’s ski boot became wedged between the chair and the ground at the [*3] unloading area, causing injury to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 30, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on July 27, 2015. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff asserted numerous claims arising out of events related to the chair lift incident. (See id.) Plaintiff asserts claims for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) negligent supervision/training, (4) negligence (respondeat superior), (5) negligent hiring, and (6) premises liability pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-21-115. (See id.)

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant, through its Motion, moves to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims except for the premises liability claim. (ECF No. 17.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim for negligence per se (Claim Two) should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 4.) Defendant further contends that Plaintiff’s claims for negligence (Claim One) and negligence per se should be dismissed as they are preempted by the Premises Liability Act. (Id. at 2.) Lastly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims for negligent supervision/training, negligence (respondeat superior), and negligent hiring should be dismissed as duplicative. (Id. at 6.) The Court will discuss these arguments in turn.

A. Negligence Per Se

[*4] Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for negligence per se. (ECF No. 17 at 4.) “In contrast to negligence, negligence per se occurs when a defendant violates a statute adopted for the public’s safety and the violation proximately causes the plaintiff’s injury.” Scott v. Matlack, Inc., 39 P.3d 1160, 1166 (Colo. 2002). Plaintiff must also show that the statute was intended to protect against the type of injury the plaintiff suffered and that the plaintiff is a member of the group of persons the statute was intended to protect. Id. If those requirements are met, “then the statute conclusively establishes the defendant’s standard of care and violation of the statute is a breach of [defendant’s] duty.” Id.

In its Motion, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to identify any statutory standard of care that has been violated. (ECF No. 17 at 4.) Plaintiff identifies two statutes as the basis of her negligence per se claim: the Skier Safety Act and the Passenger Tramway Safety Act. (ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 18-19.)

As to the Skier Safety Act, certain violations of that Act do constitute negligence per se. See Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437, 443 (Colo. 2007). Under the Skier Safety Act, “a violation by a ski area operator of any requirement of this article or any rule or regulation promulgated by the passenger tramway safety board pursuant to section 25-5-704(1)(a), C.R.S., shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of such operator.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-104(2). However, Plaintiff fails to identify any requirement of that article–the Skier Safety Act–which has been violated. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e) of the Passenger Tramway Safety Act.1 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e). (See also ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 18, 20-21.) Section 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e) identifies certain situations in which the passenger tramway safety board may take disciplinary action. However, § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e) is not a [*5] rule or regulation promulgated by the passenger tramway safety board and therefore Plaintiff does not properly state a claim for negligence per se under the Skier Safety Act.

1 Plaintiff identifies this language as coming from § 25-5-706(2)(d)–(e). However, it is clear that Plaintiff is actually referring to § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e), since the language Plaintiff quotes is from that subsection of the statute.

In its response to the Motion, Plaintiff argues that the Passenger Tramway Safety Act provides a statutory standard of care independent of the Skier Safety Act. Specifically, Plaintiff stresses that § 25-5-706(3)(d)–(e) allows for disciplinary action to be taken if there is either “[w]illful or wanton misconduct in the operation or maintenance of a passenger tramway” or “[o]peration of a passenger tramway while a condition exists in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of the passenger tramway which endangers the public health, safety, or welfare, which condition was known, or reasonably should have been known, by the area operator.”

Nevertheless, this language does not provide a statutory standard of care which is adequate to support Plaintiff’s claim for negligence per se. This Court has previously held that a claim for negligence per se requires a [*6] statute, “the violation of which can be clearly established.” Hendrickson v. Doyle, F. Supp. 3d , , 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166362, 2015 WL 8533769, at *5 (D. Colo. Dec. 11, 2015). “In other words, the relevant statute needs to prescribe or proscribe some relatively discrete action.” Id. The language of § 25-5-706(3)(d) proscribes willful or wanton misconduct and § 25-5-706(3)(e) proscribes something akin to negligent conduct. This is not statutory language prescribing or proscribing some discrete action (e.g., all chairs must be two feet removed from the ground at the unloading area). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for negligence per se. The Court grants the Motion as to Claim Two and dismisses Claim Two without prejudice.

B. Premises Liability Act Preemption

The Colorado Premises Liability Act contains the following provision:

In any civil action brought against a landowner by a person who alleges injury occurring while on the real property of another and by reason of the condition of such property, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property, the landowner shall be liable only as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-115(2). Defendant does not dispute that it meets the statutory definition of a “landowner”. (ECF No. 17 at n.1.) Based on its status as a landowner and the language of [*7] § 13-21-115(2), Defendant asserts that it can only be found liable, if at all, under the Premises Liability Act. (Id. at 4.) Therefore, Defendant argues that Claims One and Two are preempted and must be dismissed. (Id. at 3-4.)

To support its argument, Defendant cites the Colorado Supreme Court in Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004). In that case, the court held that the language of § 13-21-115(2) was “specific in its terms and without ambiguity,” and demonstrated that the General Assembly intended “to completely occupy the field and supercede existing law in the area” of premises liability. Vigil, 103 P.3d at 328. Furthermore, “[t]his language, coupled with the precisely drawn landowner duties in subsection (3), leaves no room for application of common law tort duties.” Id. Ultimately, the Court held that the Premises Liability Act “abrogate[s] the common law with respect to landowner duties.” Id. at 330.

This Court has interpreted the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion in Vigil and has held that “all common law claims involving landowner duties, including negligence . . . are abrogated by the Premises Liability Act which provides the exclusive remedy.” Raup v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc., F. Supp. 3d , , 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11499, 2016 WL 374463, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 1, 2016); see also Giebink v. Fischer, 709 F. Supp. 1012, 1017 (D. Colo. 1989) (holding that when a common law negligence claim is founded on negligent maintenance of a ski area, such a claim is within the scope of the Premises Liability Act [*8] and must be dismissed).

Claim One is a common law negligence claim. (See ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff also alleges that her injury occurred while on the property of Defendant, the admitted landowner. (Id.) Therefore, the claim would be preempted by the Premises Liability Act if the alleged injury occurred “by reason of the condition of such property, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-115(2).

Plaintiff alleges in Claim One that her injury occurred due to Defendant’s failure “to maintain a proper distance between the chair and the ground at the unloading point, and/or [failure] to property operate and/or maintain the chair lift.” (ECF No. 6 ¶ 15.) The alleged failures to maintain the conditions of the property clearly fall under the Premises Liability Act. Furthermore, failing to properly operate the chair lift is an “activity conducted” on the property that also falls under the Premises Liability Act. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-115(2); see also Raup, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11499, 2016 WL 374463, at *4 (holding that the affirmative actions of a chair lift operator, in directing passengers to exit the lift, qualified as activity conducted on the property for the purposes of the Premises Liability Act).

The Court thus has little difficulty in concluding [*9] that Plaintiff’s common law negligence claim is preempted by the Premises Liability Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion as to Claim One and dismisses Claim One with prejudice. Since the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for negligence per se in the previous section, the Court need not discuss, let alone decide, whether that claim should also be dismissed based on Defendant’s preemption argument.2

2 Defendant does not argue that Claims Three, Four, and Five are preempted by the Premises Liability Act. Therefore, the Court will also not address that issue.

C. Imputed Liability Claims

Defendant admits that both Megan McKinney and chair lift operator John Doe were employees of Defendant. (ECF No. 17 at 7.) Defendant further admits that both were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of Plaintiff’s incident. (Id.) As such, Defendant admits that it is liable under the theory of respondeat superior for whatever negligent acts or omissions of those two employees, if any, caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (See id.)

Defendant argues that, because it is vicariously liable for the employees’ negligent acts, claims based on other theories of imputed liability–Claims Three and Five–are [*10] duplicative and should be dismissed.3 (Id. at 7-8.) Defendant cites two trial court decisions from Colorado state court in which those courts dismissed claims based on theories of imputed liability that they found to be duplicative. (See id.) However, Defendant provides no state appellate precedential support for its position. (See id.)

3 In the heading for its third argument in the Motion, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s fourth claim for negligence (respondeat superior) should also be dismissed. (ECF No. 17 at 6, 8.) However, Defendant, in its discussion, does not argue that Claim Four should be dismissed. (Id. at 6-8.) Defendant’s argument in that section is limited to arguing that Claims Three and Five should be dismissed because they are duplicative of Claim Four. (See id.)

Moreover, Defendant fails to acknowledge that “[p]laintiffs may seek duplicative relief under federal and state statutes and common [law].” Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Vilsack, 84 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1198 (D. Colo. 2015). The pursuit of alternative claims for similar relief is expressly permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2) (“A party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones.”). Plaintiff may not recover [*11] for the same injury under multiple theories of imputed liability, and at some point Plaintiff may have to choose between her theories. However, that is not a reason to dismiss any of Plaintiff’s claims at this stage. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion as to Claims Three, Four, and Five.4

4 In its reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim for negligent hiring should also be dismissed on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to plead “what knowledge [Defendant] had or should have had at the time its employees were hired.” (ECF No. 31 at 6.) This argument was not made in the Motion itself and therefore the Court need not and will not consider it.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Claim One (Negligence) and Claim Two (Negligence Per Se) and DENIED as to all other claims;

3. Claim One of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

4. Claim Two of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated this 11th day of March, 2016. [*12]

BY THE COURT:

/s/ William J. Martínez

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge


D’Amico, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., 265 N.J. Super. 496; 627 A.2d 1164; 1992 N.J. Super. LEXIS 499

D’Amico, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., 265 N.J. Super. 496; 627 A.2d 1164; 1992 N.J. Super. LEXIS 499

Kathleen A. D’Amico and Allen N. D’Amico, her husband, Plaintiffs, v. Great American Recreation, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant

DOCKET No. W-029746-88

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County

265 N.J. Super. 496; 627 A.2d 1164; 1992 N.J. Super. LEXIS 499

December 24, 1992, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Approved for Publication June 9, 1993.

CASE SUMMARY:

COUNSEL: Craig L. Klafter for plaintiffs (Hanlon, Lavigne, Herzfeld & Rubin, attorneys).

Samuel A. DeGonge for defendant (Samuel A. DeGonge, attorneys).

JUDGES: RUSSELL, J.S.C.

OPINION BY: RUSSELL

OPINION

[***2] [*497] [**1165] On February 27, 1987, plaintiff was injured while attempting to board a ski lift at defendant’s ski resort, Vernon Valley. Functionally, [*498] chairlifts consist of a series of metal and wooden chairs which are suspended from a wire cable. They are spaced evenly apart along the cable which rests on wheels attached to tall steel towers. At the bottom and top of the mountain, there is a large wheel which reverses the direction of the cable to enable the chairs to go up and down the mountain. The skier skis to a waiting area to board the lift. As the chair comes closer, the skier sits down onto the chair and is picked up off the snow and transported up the mountain. A safety bar across the front of the chair is lowered into place to prevent the skier from falling out of the chair.

Plaintiff was in the boarding area of the ski lift when the accident occurred. As she was waiting for the chair, an unidentified skier skied into the path of the chair. He struck the chair intended to transport plaintiff up the mountain. As a result, the chair began to swing and struck plaintiff causing serious injury. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that defendant ski area was negligent in its operation and supervision of the ski lift. Plaintiff moved in limine for an order declaring defendant to be a common carrier in the operation of the ski lift.

This issue has not been addressed by any reported decisions in New Jersey. Plaintiff seeks to have this court adopt the reasoning of the Third District Court of Appeals of California in Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.4th 1499, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 897, (1992) that a ski area is a common carrier in the operation of its ski lifts and the highest standard of care applies

There are two New Jersey statutes which regulate ski areas, N.J.S.A. 5:13-1 et seq. (hereinafter “Ski Act”) and N.J.S.A. 34:4A-1 et seq. (hereinafter “Ski Lift Safety Act”). Neither act resolves the issue presently before this court. The Ski Act imposes duties on ski area operators and skiers involving the act of [***3] skiing. The Ski Lift Safety Act authorizes the adoption of standards for the construction, operation and inspection of ski lifts.

Plaintiff asserts that the New Jersey Ski Lift Safety Act of 1975 was modeled after a similar statute in New Hampshire originally [*499] enacted in 1957. Plaintiff derives this assertion from the similarity between the statements of purpose of the two acts. N.J.S.A. 34:4A-2 and N.H.R.S.A. 225-1:1. However, the definition of a ski area operator is significantly different in that a provision of the New Hampshire statute was added in 1965 to specifically provide that ski area operators shall not be deemed to be common carriers. Plaintiff argues that since the New Jersey Legislature was relying largely on the New Hampshire statute when it adopted the Ski Lift Safety Act, the absence of a comparable provision excluding common carrier liability evidences an intent to impose such liability.

There is nothing in the legislative history of the Ski Act or the Ski Lift Safety Act which indicates such an intent. However, the similarity between the New Hampshire and New Jersey statutes indicates that the Legislature was aware of the New Hampshire law [***4] and presumably they were also aware of the 1967 New York law which also specifically excludes ski lift operators from common carrier liability. N.Y.Trans.Law Sec. 2(6).

[HN1] It is a long-standing tenet of statutory construction that the legislature will not be said to change the common law without clear statutory language. See State v. Dalglish, 86 N.J. 503, 432 A.2d 74 (1981). Furthermore, [HN2] N.J.S.A. 34:4A-4 specifically provides that the Ski Lift Safety Act shall not “reduce or diminish the standard of care imposed upon passenger tramway operators under existing law.”

New Jersey case law provides little assistance in this matter; however, a number of other courts have grappled with this issue. In 1959, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court decided Grauer v. New York, 9 A.D.2d 829, 192 N.Y.S.2d 647 (1959). The court held that the state of New York would be deemed to be a common carrier in the operation of a chair lift at a state park. The court noted that in [**1166] the operation of the chair lift, “(a) fee was charged for transportation and the public was invited [***5] to use the service.” Id. 192 N.Y.S.2d at 649. This holding by the New York Court was later overturned by the Legislature in 1967 [*500] when it amended New York’s transportation law. See N.Y.Trans. Law Sec. 2(6).

In Fisher v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 283 F.2d 533 (2nd Cir.1960), the court upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the standard of care of a common carrier applied to a Vermont ski lift operator. In Summit County Development Corp. v. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. 27, 441 P.2d 658 (1968), the trial judge instructed the jury that the ski area operator owed plaintiff the highest degree of care because it was a common carrier in the operation of its ski lifts. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld this decision.

In Allen v. New Hampshire, 110 N.H. 42, 260 A.2d 454 (1969), the court applied the standard of care of a common carrier to a ski lift operator. New Hampshire later changed its law through legislative action. N.H.R.S.A. Sec. 225-A:1. See Bolduc v. Herbert Schneider Corp., 117 N.H. 566, 374 A.2d 1187 (1977).

[***6] In one case, Pessl v. Bridger Bowl, 164 Mont. 389, 524 P.2d 1101 (1974), the court did not apply the common carrier standard to a ski lift operator because of specific state legislation preventing such application. See Mont.Code Ann. Sec. 69-6615 (1947).

Grauer, Fisher, Bagnoli, Allen and Pessl were all decided before the New Jersey Legislature adopted the Ski Lift Safety Act in 1975. As such, the Legislature must be said to have been aware of the trend of courts addressing this issue to hold ski lift operators to the standard of care of common carriers. See Guzman v. City of Perth Amboy, 214 N.J.Super. 167, 518 A.2d 758 (App.Div.1980).

This trend was continued in the recent, well reasoned decision of Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.4th 1499, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 897 (1992). The court defined [HN3] a common carrier as “any entity which holds itself out to the public generally and indifferently to transport goods or persons from place to place for profit” and held that a ski lift operator fit within [***7] this definition. Id. at 1508, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 897.

[*501] The defendant in the Squaw Valley case and the defendant in the case sub judice both argued that a ski lift operator is not a common carrier because ski lift riders are required to possess special equipment and skills in order to use the lift, hence, a ski lift is not offered for use indiscriminately to the general public. This court agrees with the conclusion of the Squaw Valley Court that defendant’s argument must fail. [HN4] A common carrier does not lose its status as such merely because the nature of its services is specialized. All members of the general public who possess the necessary equipment and expertise may avail themselves of the Vernon Valley chair lift.

The rationale behind requiring common carriers to exercise the highest degree of care furthers its application here. A passenger of a common carrier places himself in the care of that common carrier. A passenger is unable to use his own faculties in order to prevent or avoid accidents and is forced to rely on the common carrier to ensure that accidents are avoided. The carrier has this responsibility [***8] because they exercise control of the equipment used in the transportation of the passenger. Only the carrier can ensure that the equipment is in proper working order and is being operated correctly.

Just like a passenger on a train who has no opportunity to ensure that the locomotive is operating properly, a skier cannot determine whether a ski lift is operating properly. When skiers board a ski lift, they are entrusting their care in the hands of another. Once they have committed themselves to riding that chair up the mountain, they are powerless to control their own safety. The chair lifts the skier off the ground as she sits down. The chair is suspended off the ground at considerable distance. The skier has no ability to stop the cable from moving. Furthermore, a skier can’t exit the chair once it has begun [**1167] its ascent. Because of the skier’s helplessness, ski lift operators should be held to the highest standard of care.

Defendant argues that it should not be deemed to be a common carrier because “(i)t does not hold itself out to the public for [*502] compensation for the transportation of persons.” Great American Recreation asserts that the transportation of skiers [***9] up the mountain is only “incidental” to its business. Ski areas provide customers with many services including snow making, trail grooming and maintenance, lessons, parking, equipment rentals and restaurant facilities. However, skiers come to ski areas to ski. If ski areas did not provide transportation up a mountain, it would be impossible for skiers to ski down the mountain. Transportation of skiers up the mountain is one of the primary functions of a ski area operator. It is the reason skiers purchase “lift tickets”.

Defendant also argues that holding ski lift area operators to the standard of care of a common carrier would necessitate holding operators of elevators, escalators and other people movers to the standard of care of common carriers. However, many states have imposed this standard of care on operators of these devices. See, e.g., Kaminsky v. Arthur Rubloff & Co., 72 Ill.App.2d 68, 218 N.E.2d 860 (1906) (elevator); Norman v. Thomas Emery’s Sons, Inc., 7 Ohio App.2d 41, 218 N.E.2d 480 (1942) (elevator); [***10] Vandagriff v. J.C. Penney Co., 228 Cal.App.2d 579, 39 Cal.Rptr. 671 (1964). But see Tolman v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc., 38 Ill.2d 519, 233 N.E.2d 33 (1968) (holding that escalators are not common carriers). The reported New Jersey decisions involving elevators or escalators do not address the issue of whether to hold the operators to the standard of care of a common carrier. See Pisano v. S. Klein on the Square, 78 N.J.Super. 375, 188 A.2d 622 (1963); Dombrowska v. Kresge-Newark, Inc., 75 N.J.Super. 271, 183 A.2d 111 (App.Div.1962).

The fact that this plaintiff was not physically on the lift when she was injured does not help defendant. [HN5] The duty of care of a common carrier includes providing a safe means of ingress and egress for its passengers. See Buchner v. Erie Railroad Co., 17 N.J. 283, 111 A.2d 257 (1955).

Based upon the applicable well-reasoned decisions from other jurisdictions and the analysis set forth above, [HN6] this court holds that ski area operators are common carriers in the operation of ski [*503] lifts. It is, of course, within the [***11] power of the Legislature to follow the examples of New York and New Hampshire and amend existing law to exclude ski lift operators from common carrier liability. Great American Recreation will be held to the standard of care applicable to other types of common carriers in the operation of its Vernon Valley chairlift. This standard has been described as the highest possible care consistent with the nature of the undertaking involved. Harpell v. Public Serv. Coord. Transp., 20 N.J. 309, 120 A.2d 43 (1956). See Model Jury Charges 5.31.


Zip line accused of being common carrier which makes releases unenforceable. Issue still not decided, however, in all states common carriers cannot use a release as a defense.

Many ropes courses have determined that agreeing to be supervised by the state is the way to go. In Illinois, that supervision would have voided all defenses for a challenge course because they would have been classified as a common carrier. Common carriers’ have extremely limited defenses to claims.

Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 2015 IL App (5th) 140124-U; 2015 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1584

State: Illinois, Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District

Plaintiff: April Dodge

Defendant: Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, and Michael Quinn

Plaintiff Claims: negligently designing and operating its course, intentionally or recklessly violated the safety regulations promulgated by the Illinois Department of Labor, and thereby engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. In count II, the plaintiff claimed that Quinn, a tour guide for Grafton Zipline, was negligent in instructing the plaintiff, in inspecting and maintaining the braking system, and in failing to prevent the plaintiff from colliding with the tree. The plaintiff also alleged willful and wanton misconduct against Quinn

Defendant Defenses: Release

Holding: Sent back to the trial court to determine if a zip line under Illinois law is a common carrier

Year: 2015

The facts are pretty normal for zip line lawsuits. The plaintiff while riding was unable to slow down or stop and hit the tree holding the platform. In this case it was the eighth line of multiple zip lines down the mountain.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on a release signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the release was barred because the zip line was a common carrier under Illinois law and as such “they cannot exempt themselves from liability for their own negligence.”

The trial court agreed with the plaintiff that a zip line was a common carrier. That analysis was based on the theory that:

…in that zip lines fell within the definition of amusement rides pursuant to the Illinois Carnival and Amusement Rides Safety Act (430 ILCS 85/2-2 (West 2012)) and were akin to merry-go-rounds or other amusement rides that had been held to be common carriers.

The defendants filed a motion for permissive interlocutory appeal which was denied by the appellate court. However the Illinois Supreme Court directed the appellate court to vacate (reverse) its order denying the appeal.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The court first looked at Illinois law on releases, calling them exculpatory clauses.

An exculpatory clause is a contractual provision that excuses the defaulting party’s liability. “Courts disfavor such agreements and construe them strictly against the benefitting party, particularly one who drafted the release.” “Nevertheless, contracting parties are free to ‘allocate the risk of negligence as they see fit, and exculpatory agreements do not violate public policy as a matter of law.'”

The analysis under Illinois law concerning releases is pretty standard. Although “disfavored” they are upheld.

Accordingly, if a valid exculpatory clause clearly applies, and in the absence of fraud or willful and wanton negligence, courts will enforce it unless “‘(1) it would be against a settled public policy of the State to do so, or (2) there is something in the social relationship of the parties militating against upholding the agreement.

Releases under Illinois law however are unenforceable when applied to common carriers as releases for common carriers create a violation of public policy.

Exculpatory agreements between the public and those charged with a duty of public service, such as those involving a common carrier, an innkeeper, a public warehouseman, or a public utility, have been held to be unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

The unenforceability of a release between a passenger and a common carrier is due to the relationship between the two.

Courts have alternatively recognized that exculpatory agreements between common carriers and passengers are unenforceable because of the special social relationship of a semipublic nature that permeates the transaction between the parties.

Arguments given for this are based on the fact the passenger pays for transportation from one location to another and during that transportation the passenger is totally at the control of the common carrier. The passenger cannot drive, inspect the track, road or path of travel, work on the engines or anything of that manner. The only thing the passenger can do is sit back and ride. The passenger has no control over their safety.

In this case, slowing or braking was under the control of the plaintiff.

A common carrier is held to the highest duty of care when transporting passengers.

Common carriers are charged with the highest duty of care when transporting passengers because passengers must wholly rely upon a common carrier’s proper maintenance and safe operation of its equipment during passage.

In Illinois common carriers have been identified as: “owners of buildings with elevators; a scenic railway at an amusement resort, where “steep inclines, sharp curves, and great speed necessarily are sources of peril”; a merry-go-round; a taxicab; and a Ferris wheel.” Here, as in most states, the safety of the passenger is totally under the control of the owner of the ride. What is different is normally a common carrier is taking people from once location to another, not around in circle or down a mountain you just ascended.

The court also examined and compared common carriers with private carriers.

Further, courts have distinguished between a common and a private carrier. “A common carrier, generally, is a carrier hired to carry any person who applies for passage as long as there is room available and there is no legal excuse for refusing.” “Ordinarily, a common carrier must accept as a passenger any person offering himself or herself for passage at the proper time and in the proper manner and who is able and willing to pay the fare.”

Here again, a common carrier is easily identified as a train, bus service or airline.

A common carrier holds himself out as such by advertising or by actually engaging in the business and pursuing the occupation as an employment. The test to distinguish a common carrier from a private carrier is whether the carrier serves all of the public alike.

The distinction between private carrier and a common carrier is gray in Illinois and the court spent time reviewing the issues. If the passenger actively can participate in the transportation and contributed to his or her own safety, the carrier is not a common carrier. In Illinois not being a common carrier does not necessarily mean a private person is a Private Carrier.

Private carriers as ordinarily defined are those who, without being engaged in such business as a public employment, undertake to deliver goods or passengers in a particular case for hire or reward.” A private carrier makes no public profession to carry all who apply for transport, transports only by special agreement, and is not bound to serve every person who may apply.

Normally the distinction is made by the courts based on whether or not the carrier is a business, in the business of moving people from one place to another for a fee. Trains, busses, airlines are common carriers. Here the definition is confused because of the existence in Illinois of a broad definition of private carrier that is to say the least confusing.

Whether a particular transportation service is undertaken in the capacity of a private or of a common carrier must be determined by reference to the character of the business actually carried on by the carrier, and also by the nature of the service to be performed in the particular instance.”

It is this distinction that the court found to be at issue in this case, whether a zip line is a common carrier or a private carrier.

The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court to determine if a zip line under Illinois law is a private carrier or a common carrier. If the trial court, which has ruled once already that a zip line, is a common carrier, rules the zip line is a common carrier, the sole issue at trial will be damages. How large will the check be that the zip line writes the plaintiff?

So Now What?

Readily accepting government regulation may provide a degree of relief in that you pass the safety inspection you are good for the season. However, once you are under that regulatory umbrella, you may also be classified by the regulations, statutes or the courts in a way you did not anticipate. You may lose defenses available to you prior to regulation.

This is similar to having a statute passed which provides liability protection for you. However this can be a two edge sword. Many state supreme courts have held that once a statute is enacted to provide protection, the only protection available is from the statute.

Many states create special categories for regulated industries. Here, falling under the regulation of the state classified the zip line as a common carrier.

The good news is the appellate court did not see the zip line as immediately qualifying as being controlled by the statute. Statutes usually define what they cover and the court did not even investigate the definition in this case.

However the court did look into whether or not a zip line was a common carrier. If the trial court finds that it is, there will be no end to the claims against zip lines in Illinois. Looked at another way, if the trial court determines a zip line is a common carrier, there will be an end to zip lines.

clip_image002What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

 

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

 

Copyright 2015 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

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

 

 

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Zip Line, Zipline, Common Carrier, Private Carrier, Release, Exculpatory Clause,

 


Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 2015 IL App (5th) 140124-U; 2015 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1584

Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 2015 IL App (5th) 140124-U; 2015 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1584

April Dodge, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, and Michael Quinn, Defendants-Petitioners.

NO. 5-14-0124

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140124-U; 2015 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1584

July 14, 2015, Decision Filed

NOTICE: THIS ORDER WAS FILED UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 23 AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT BY ANY PARTY EXCEPT IN THE LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWED UNDER RULE 23(E)(1).

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County. No. 13-L-238. Honorable Barbara L. Crowder, Judge, Presiding.

Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 2014 Ill. LEXIS 1270, 387 Ill. Dec. 513, 22 N.E.3d 1166 (Ill., 2014)

JUDGES: JUSTICE SCHWARM delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Welch and Moore concurred in the judgment.

OPINION BY: SCHWARM

OPINION

ORDER

[*P1] Held: Appellate court declines to answer the certified question and remands to the trial court to hear evidence to determine whether exculpatory agreement is between the public and one charged with a duty of public service, i.e., a common carrier, and therefore unenforceable.

[*P2] The plaintiff, April Dodge, filed the instant suit seeking recovery for injuries she sustained while riding on an aerial zip line course designed and operated by defendant Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC (Grafton Zipline), by which defendant Michael Quinn is employed. The circuit court certified a question after denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

[*P3] BACKGROUND

[*P4] In her first amended complaint filed on May 3, 2013, the plaintiff alleged that Grafton Zipline operated an aerial zip line course in which paying guests, riding from one elevated platform to another, were guided over a series of suspended wire cable runs. The plaintiff alleged that [**2] “guests [we]re outfitted with a harness and pulley system which attache[d] to the suspended cables and which in theory allow[ed] them to control their speed by braking on descents.” The plaintiff alleged that on the eighth run of the zip line course, the plaintiff’s braking system failed to slow her descent, she approached the landing platform at a high rate of speed, and she violently struck the trunk of the tree on which the landing platform was mounted, fracturing her right heel bone.

[*P5] In count I, the plaintiff alleged that Grafton Zipline was a common carrier that breached its duty of care by negligently designing and operating its course, intentionally or recklessly violated the safety regulations promulgated by the Illinois Department of Labor (56 Ill. Adm. Code 6000.350 (2013)), and thereby engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. In count II, the plaintiff claimed that Quinn, a tour guide for Grafton Zipline, was negligent in instructing the plaintiff, in inspecting and maintaining the braking system, and in failing to prevent the plaintiff from colliding with the tree. The plaintiff also alleged willful and wanton misconduct against Quinn.

[*P6] On June 7, 2013, pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2012)), the defendants [**3] filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s first amended complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by an exculpatory agreement signed by the plaintiff prior to her participation in the zip line activity. In the agreement, the plaintiff agreed to release the defendants from liability for injury, disability, death, or loss or damage to persons or property, whether caused by negligence or otherwise.

[*P7] In the plaintiff’s memorandum of law in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the plaintiff asserted that the defendants’ exculpatory agreement was unenforceable. The plaintiff asserted that zip line courses are common carriers under Illinois law, and as such, they cannot exempt themselves from liability for their own negligence.

[*P8] On November 1, 2013, the circuit court held that exculpatory clauses were unenforceable against plaintiffs injured by the ordinary negligence of a common carrier. The circuit court noted that when parties disagree as to whether a defendant is a common carrier, the question becomes a controverted question of fact to be determined after considering evidence. However, the circuit court found that the pleadings before it alleged sufficient [**4] facts to establish that the defendants were common carriers, in that zip lines fell within the definition of amusement rides pursuant to the Illinois Carnival and Amusement Rides Safety Act (430 ILCS 85/2-2 (West 2012)) and were akin to merry-gorounds or other amusement rides that had been held to be common carriers. The circuit court thereby denied the defendants’ section 2-619 motion to dismiss based on the exculpatory clause but also stated that “questions of fact remain as to whether [d]efendants *** are within the definition of common carriers.”

[*P9] On March 6, 2014, the circuit court, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Feb. 26, 2010), entered its order certifying the following question for appeal:

“Is an exculpatory agreement signed by a participant on a zip[ ]line course, that released the zip[ ]line operator and its employees from their own negligence, enforceable to bar the participant’s suit for negligence, or is the zip[ ]line course a common carrier such that the exculpatory agreement is unenforceable?”

[*P10] On March 20, 2014, the defendants filed an application for permissive interlocutory appeal, which we denied on April 21, 2014. On September 24, 2014, however, the Illinois Supreme Court directed this court to vacate its judgment denying [**5] the defendants’ application for leave to appeal and directed us to grant such application. Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures, LLC, 387 Ill. Dec. 513, 22 N.E.3d 1166 (Ill. 2014). On November 5, 2014, per the supreme court’s supervisory order and pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308, we thereafter allowed the defendants’ permissive interlocutory appeal.

[*P11] ANALYSIS

[*P12] On appeal, the defendants argue that the exculpatory agreement signed by the plaintiff bars her negligence claims and that the exculpatory agreement is enforceable because Grafton Zipline is not a common carrier. The plaintiff counters that the circuit court’s certified question is not ripe for determination because there are unresolved questions of fact regarding whether Grafton Zipline is a common carrier. We agree with the plaintiff.

[*P13] “The scope of review in an interlocutory appeal brought under [Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 308 is limited to the certified question.” Spears v. Association of Illinois Electric Cooperatives, 2013 IL App (4th) 120289, ¶ 15, 986 N.E.2d 216, 369 Ill. Dec. 267. “A reviewing court should only answer a certified question if it asks a question of law and [should] decline to answer where the ultimate disposition ‘will depend on the resolution of a host of factual predicates.’ [Citations.]” Id. “A certified question pursuant to Rule 308 is reviewed de novo.” Id.

[*P14] An exculpatory [**6] clause is a contractual provision that excuses the defaulting party’s liability. See Black’s Law Dictionary 648 (9th ed. 2009) (defining an exculpatory clause as “a contractual provision relieving a party from liability resulting from a negligent or wrongful act”); McKinney v. Castleman, 2012 IL App (4th) 110098, ¶ 14, 968 N.E.2d 185, 360 Ill. Dec. 106 (exculpatory agreement involves express assumption of risk wherein one party consents to relieve another of a particular obligation). “Courts disfavor such agreements and construe them strictly against the benefitting party, particularly one who drafted the release.” McKinney, 2012 IL App (4th) 110098, ¶ 14. “Nevertheless, contracting parties are free to ‘allocate the risk of negligence as they see fit, and exculpatory agreements do not violate public policy as a matter of law.'” Id. (quoting Evans v. Lima Lima Flight Team, Inc., 373 Ill. App. 3d 407, 412, 869 N.E.2d 195, 311 Ill. Dec. 521 (2007)).

[*P15] Accordingly, if a valid exculpatory clause clearly applies, and in the absence of fraud or willful and wanton negligence, courts will enforce it unless “‘(1) it would be against a settled public policy of the State to do so, or (2) there is something in the social relationship of the parties militating against upholding the agreement.'” McKinney, 2012 IL App (4th) 110098, ¶ 14 (quoting Harris v. Walker, 119 Ill. 2d 542, 548, 519 N.E.2d 917, 116 Ill. Dec. 702 (1988)). Exculpatory agreements between the public and those charged with a duty of public service, such as those involving a common [**7] carrier, an innkeeper, a public warehouseman, or a public utility, have been held to be unenforceable as contrary to public policy. McKinney, 2012 IL App (4th) 110098, ¶ 14; Johnson v. Salvation Army, 2011 IL App (1st) 103323, ¶ 19, 957 N.E.2d 485, 354 Ill. Dec. 169; White v. Village of Homewood, 256 Ill. App. 3d 354, 358-59, 628 N.E.2d 616, 195 Ill. Dec. 152 (1993). Courts have alternatively recognized that exculpatory agreements between common carriers and passengers are unenforceable because of the special social relationship of a semipublic nature that permeates the transaction between the parties. See McClure Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Reuben Donnelley Corp., 101 Ill. App. 3d 1109, 1111, 428 N.E.2d 1151, 57 Ill. Dec. 471 (1981); First Financial Insurance Co. v. Purolator Security, Inc., 69 Ill. App. 3d 413, 419, 388 N.E.2d 17, 26 Ill. Dec. 393 (1979) (“when an exculpatory provision is found invalid because of a special relationship between the parties, it is the semipublic nature of the party seeking to exculpate itself from liability that allows the court to invalidate the provision”).

[*P16] Thus, any contract by which a common carrier of goods or passengers undertakes to relieve itself from liability for loss or damage arising from its negligence or the negligence of its servants is void. Checkley v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 257 Ill. 491, 494, 100 N.E. 942 (1913); Simmons v. Columbus Venetian Stevens Buildings, Inc., 20 Ill. App. 2d 1, 17, 155 N.E.2d 372 (1958); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 496B cmt. g (1965) (“Where the defendant is a common carrier ***, or is otherwise charged with a duty of public service, and the agreement to assume the risk relates to the defendant’s performance of any part of that duty, it is well settled that it will not be given effect.”). “Having undertaken the duty to the public, which includes the obligation of reasonable care, [**8] [common carriers] are not free to rid themselves of their public obligation by contract, or by any other agreement.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 496B cmt. g (1965).

[*P17] An exculpatory contract, wherein a common carrier of goods or passengers undertakes to exempt itself from liability for negligence “if sustained, would relieve the carrier from its essential and important duties to the public growing out of the character of its employment, and tend to defeat the foundation principle on which the law of common carriers is based; that is, the securing of the highest care and diligence in the performance of the important duties due to the public.” Checkley, 257 Ill. at 494; see also Simmons, 20 Ill. App. 2d at 17. “The heightened status afforded to common carrier[ ] *** relationships is based on the protection of the public ***.” Zerjal v. Daech & Bauer Construction, Inc., 405 Ill. App. 3d 907, 912, 939 N.E.2d 1067, 345 Ill. Dec. 887 (2010); see also Simmons, 20 Ill. App. 2d at 17 (“It has been said if there is any general reason for the rule to be deduced from the passenger cases, it is that the public service consideration alone prevents contractual limitation of liability for negligence.”).

[*P18] In holding that a common carrier has a duty to exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of its conveyances to protect its passengers (Rotheli v. Chicago Transit Authority, 7 Ill. 2d 172, 177-78, 130 N.E.2d 172 (1955); Browne v. Chicago Transit Authority, 19 Ill. App. 3d 914, 917, 312 N.E.2d 287 (1974)), courts have considered the “‘unique control [a common [**9] carrier] possesses over its passengers’ safety.'” Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 391 Ill. App. 3d 663, 666, 909 N.E.2d 887, 330 Ill. Dec. 865 (2009) (quoting Sheffer v. Springfield Airport Authority, 261 Ill. App. 3d 151, 154, 632 N.E.2d 1069, 198 Ill. Dec. 458 (1994)); see also O’Callaghan v. Dellwood Park Co., 242 Ill. 336, 345, 89 N.E. 1005 (1909) (“If the injury of a passenger is caused by apparatus wholly under the control of a carrier and furnished and managed by it, and the accident is of such a character that it would not ordinarily occur if due care is used, the law raises a presumption of negligence.”). “Common carriers are charged with the highest duty of care when transporting passengers because passengers must wholly rely upon a common carrier’s proper maintenance and safe operation of its equipment during passage.” Sheffer, 261 Ill. App. 3d at 156. “[C]ommon carriers are responsible for their patrons’ physical safety for which there is no second chance if a mistake should occur.” Zerjal, 405 Ill. App. 3d at 912.

[*P19] In determining whether a defendant is a common carrier that owes the highest degree of care in transporting its passengers, the courts have characterized the following as common carriers: owners of buildings with elevators (Rotheli, 7 Ill. 2d at 177); a scenic railway at an amusement resort, where “steep inclines, sharp curves, and great speed necessarily are sources of peril” (O’Callaghan, 242 Ill. at 344); a merry-go-round (Arndt v. Riverview Park Co., 259 Ill. App. 210, 216-17 (1930)); a taxicab (Metz v. Yellow Cab Co., 248 Ill. App. 609, 612 (1928)); and a Ferris wheel (Pajak v. Mamsch, 338 Ill. App. 337, 341, 87 N.E.2d 147 (1949)).

[*P20] In finding that an escalator was not a common carrier, the Illinois Supreme Court in Tolman found [**10] it significant that a person on an escalator may actively participate in the transportation in a manner similar to the use of a stairway and may contribute to his own safety. Tolman v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc., 38 Ill. 2d 519, 526, 233 N.E.2d 33 (1967). The court noted that the role of a passenger on a train, bus, or elevator is a passive one, and ordinarily such a passenger cannot exercise any control over his own safety. Id. at 525. The court further held that the rule as to the higher duty one owning and operating an elevator owes to a passenger riding in same, who is injured through some defect in its operating mechanism, is predicated upon the fact that a person riding in an elevator cannot possibly know or show, if such elevator gets out of control, what caused it to do so. Id. at 524-25. The court noted that because the elevator owner was in sole control of the elevator and the machinery used in its operation, an inference of negligence on the part of said owner arose out of the circumstances. Id.; see also Lombardo v. Reliance Elevator Co., 315 Ill. App. 3d 111, 125, 733 N.E.2d 874, 248 Ill. Dec. 199 (2000) (because bank had full control of premises, it had the duties of common carrier owed to the plaintiff who suffered injuries when the lift he was riding suddenly fell); Carson v. Weston Hotel Corp., 351 Ill. App. 523, 532, 115 N.E.2d 800 (1953) (lessee in full control of the premises had the duties of a common carrier of elevator [**11] passengers).

[*P21] While proper solicitude for human safety requires a carrier of passengers not to diminish its liability to them, the relative bargaining power of the parties is also a factor. Simmons, 20 Ill. App. 2d at 17. In Hamer v. City Segway Tours of Chicago, LLC, 402 Ill. App. 3d 42, 43-44, 930 N.E.2d 578, 341 Ill. Dec. 368 (2010), the plaintiff sought to recover for injuries she suffered on a tour run where she rode a segway onto a small grassy hill, and it threw her off. The plaintiff signed a release before participating in the tour. Id. The plaintiff argued, however, that her social relationship with the defendant and its tour guide rendered the release unenforceable. Id. at 46. The court concluded, without analysis, that the defendant was not a common carrier. Id. Finding also that that there was no disparity of bargaining power because the plaintiff simply could have refused to join the tour if she had disagreed with the exculpatory clause, the court held that the exculpatory language of the release was enforceable. Id.

[*P22] Further, courts have distinguished between a common and a private carrier. “A common carrier, generally, is a carrier hired to carry any person who applies for passage as long as there is room available and there is no legal excuse for refusing.” Long v. Illinois Power Co., 187 Ill. App. 3d 614, 628, 543 N.E.2d 525, 135 Ill. Dec. 142 (1989). “Ordinarily, a common carrier must accept as a passenger [**12] any person offering himself or herself for passage at the proper time and in the proper manner and who is able and willing to pay the fare.” Id. “[A] common carrier may be liable for an unexcused refusal to carry all who apply.” Doe v. Rockdale School District No. 84, 287 Ill. App. 3d 791, 794, 679 N.E.2d 771, 223 Ill. Dec. 320 (1997). A common carrier is “obligated by law to undertake the charge of transportation, which none but a common carrier, without a special agreement, is.” Rathbun v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., 299 Ill. 562, 566, 132 N.E. 754 (1921).

[*P23] A common carrier holds himself out as such by advertising or by actually engaging in the business and pursuing the occupation as an employment. Id. at 567. The test to distinguish a common carrier from a private carrier is whether the carrier serves all of the public alike. Green v. Carlinville Community Unit School District No. 1, 381 Ill. App. 3d 207, 211, 887 N.E.2d 451, 320 Ill. Dec. 307 (2008); Illinois Highway Transportation Co. v. Hantel, 323 Ill. App. 364, 375, 55 N.E.2d 710 (1944). Again, common carriers necessarily have control and regulation of the passengers’ conduct and of the operation of the carriage before they can be held to the extraordinary liability of common carriers to such passengers. Rathbun, 299 Ill. at 567 (evidence that deceased contracted car by private contract and had control of car and driver revealed defendant was not common carrier but was liable only as private carrier for ordinary negligence).

[*P24] “Private carriers as ordinarily defined are those who, without being engaged in such business as a public employment, undertake [**13] to deliver goods or passengers in a particular case for hire or reward.” Rathbun, 299 Ill. at 566. A private carrier makes no public profession to carry all who apply for transport, transports only by special agreement, and is not bound to serve every person who may apply. Green, 381 Ill. App. 3d at 211; Rockdale School District No. 84, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 795.

[*P25] “Whether a particular transportation service is undertaken in the capacity of a private or of a common carrier must be determined by reference to the character of the business actually carried on by the carrier, and also by the nature of the service to be performed in the particular instance.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Long, 187 Ill. App. 3d at 630. When a plaintiff affirms and the defendant denies that the defendant is operating as a common carrier, the question becomes a controverted question of fact to be determined by a consideration of the evidence by the trial court. Rathbun, 299 Ill. at 566; Bare v. American Forwarding Co., 242 Ill. 298, 299, 89 N.E. 1021 (1909); Hantel, 323 Ill. App. at 374; Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Fisher, 291 Ill. App. 495, 497, 10 N.E.2d 220 (1937).

[*P26] Accordingly, we find that whether Grafton Zipline is a common carrier is a question of fact, “dependent upon the nature of the business in which [it is] engaged, and [is] to be determined from a consideration of all of the evidence.” Beatrice Creamery Co., 291 Ill. App. at 497. In its order, the circuit court noted that questions of fact remained regarding whether Grafton Zipline is a common carrier. [**14] We agree and find this so with regard to the certified question. To determine whether the exculpatory clause is unenforceable on the basis that Grafton Zipline is a common carrier “charged with a duty of public service” the court must necessarily determine disputed factual issues. The court must determine whether Grafton Zipline had control and regulation of the passengers’ conduct and of the operation of the carriage (see Rathbun, 299 Ill. at 567 (evidence that deceased contracted car by private contract and had control of car and driver revealed defendant was not common carrier but was liable only as private carrier for ordinary negligence)); whether the plaintiff actively participated in the transportation and contributed to her own safety (Tolman, 38 Ill. 2d at 525-26 (because escalator allowed the plaintiff to actively participate in the transportation and allowed control over safety, escalator not common carrier); whether there was a disparity of bargaining power between the parties (see Hamer, 402 Ill. App. 3d at 43-44 (exculpatory clause enforceable where plaintiff could simply have refused to join the segway tour)); and whether Grafton Zipline made a profession to carry all who applied for carriage (see Browne v. SCR Medical Transportation Services, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 642, 647, 826 N.E.2d 1030, 292 Ill. Dec. 594 (2005) (because medical transport van served only those individuals [**15] who met its eligibility requirements, could decline to serve anyone based on numerous factors such as location and availability of medical transport vans, made no profession to carry all who apply for carriage, and was not bound to serve every person who may apply, medical transport van was not a common carrier)). To answer the certified question before the circuit court has heard evidence on these matters would be premature. Thus, we decline to answer the certified question, and we remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this order. See Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460, 477, 693 N.E.2d 358, 230 Ill. Dec. 229 (1998).

[*P27] CONCLUSION

[*P28] For the reasons stated, we decline to answer the certified question as its ultimate disposition depends on the resolution of multiple factual predicates. We remand the cause to the Madison County circuit court for further proceedings.

[*P29] Certified question not answered; cause remanded.