Ski Area not liable when skiers leave the ski run and collide with snow making equipment in Michigan.
Posted: October 2, 2022 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Michigan, Ski Area | Tags: fatality, Michigan Michigan Ski Area Safety Act, Michigan SASA, SASA, Schuss Mountain, ski run, Snow Making, Snow Making Equipment Leave a commentLitigation ensued because an important term in the Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act was not defined in the act. What is a ski run?
Round v. Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)
State: Michigan; Court of Appeals of Michigan
Plaintiff: Cheryle A. Round, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles R. Round
Defendant: Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, Schuss Mountain
Plaintiff Claims: negligence action, alleging that defendant failed to comply with duties imposed under the SASA
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: For the defendant ski area
Year: 2022
Summary
Lawsuit against a ski area was based on a term in the statute that was not defined, forcing the court to define the term. What is a ski run? The decedent skied into snow making equipment and died. If on the ski run, the equipment must be marked. The equipment was not marked. The court also ruled over and embankment, not on snow and 15-25 feet from the edge of the run, the snow making equipment was not on the ski run.
Facts
On December 21, 2019, plaintiff’s decedent, Charles R. Round, died after allegedly sustaining fatal injuries when he collided with snow-making equipment at Schuss Mountain, a ski area owned and operated by defendant. At the time, Round was participating in an event called the Tannenbaum Blitzen parade whereby volunteer skiers ski down an unlit hill-known as Kingdom Come-at night while carrying lighted torches, eventually getting to the bottom of the hill to light the ski resort’s Christmas tree. Round was leading the parade of skiers-as he had for several years-when he suddenly veered to his left and skied beyond the edge of the ski run. A ski lift was located on the edge of the ski run and, underneath the ski lift, were four permanent snow-making machines installed at various points up the hill. At about the half-way point of the ski hill, Round crossed into this area, collided with a snow-making machine, and sustained severe injuries that proved fatal.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
Pursuant to Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act, a ski area is not liable for injuries to its patrons for collisions with snow making equipment if the snow making equipment is “properly marked or plainly visible.”
§ 408.342. Duties of skier in ski area; acceptance of dangers.
(2) Each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts the dangers that inhere in that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries which can result from variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots; rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris; collisions with ski lift towers and their components, with other skiers, or with properly marked or plainly visible snow-making or snow-grooming equipment.
The plaintiff argued the snow making equipment was not marked and had to be marked because it was located on the ski run. The defendant argued that the snow making equipment was not on the ski run. Ski run is not defined by the Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act. The Michigan Appellate Court then had to use the plain meeting of the terms to derive a definition.
At minimum, the plain meaning of the phrase “ski run” for purposes of the SASA must include a path or route expected to be used for skiing down a hill. Indeed, ski runs are named, designed, constructed, groomed, and designated as the route skiers are to use for skiing down a particular hill. As this Court similarly noted in Rhoda v O’Dovero, Inc, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals: “Although the SASA does not define the terms ‘run,’ ‘slope’ or ‘trail,’ the plain, ordinary and common meanings of these terms encompass the paths a skier or snowboarder takes to get down a hill, including those paths designed and constructed by the ski operator for precisely that purpose.”
The court then went into the depositions presented by the defendant, witnesses who described the location of the snow making equipment when the deceased hit it.
The decedent was found 22′ off the run, over an embankment under the snow gun. It took several repetitions to move the deceased in a toboggan from where he was back up to the ski run.
The court reasoned if the snow gun which the deceased collided with was located on the trail, the other skiers following him would have hit the snow gun also.
The Appellate court sent the case back to the trail court with an order to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case.
So Now What?
Short and sweet, but educational because of the issues the statute left out. Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act is a combination of a skier safety act and a tramway act. Consequently, it is quite long with little have much to do with how the ski area is to operate. The act has definitions but most deal with the structure of the tramway issues.
When one term, as in this case ski run is used to defined part of a statute, that term needs to be defined, or we end up in a position like this, litigation to define what is a ski run.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2020 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
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, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Round v. Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)
Posted: October 2, 2022 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Michigan, Ski Area | Tags: fatality, Michigan SASA, Michigan Ski Area Safety Act, Schuss Mountain, ski run, Snow Making Equipment Leave a commentRound v. Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)
CHERYLE A. ROUND, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF CHARLES R. ROUND, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee,
v.
TRINIDAD RESORT & CLUB, LLC,Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant.
No. 357849
Court of Appeals of Michigan
September 15, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
Antrim County Circuit Court LC No. 20-009218-NO
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Garrett and Yates, JJ.
Per Curiam
Defendant appeals by leave granted[1] an order denying its motion for summary disposition which asserted that it was entitled to immunity under Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., because plaintiff could not demonstrate noncompliance with a statutory duty; the snow-making equipment that plaintiff’s decedent collided with was not located on the ski run so a warning sign was not required. We agree and reverse.
On December 21, 2019, plaintiff’s decedent, Charles R. Round, died after allegedly sustaining fatal injuries when he collided with snow-making equipment at Schuss Mountain, a ski area owned and operated by defendant. At the time, Round was participating in an event called the Tannenbaum Blitzen parade whereby volunteer skiers ski down an unlit hill-known as Kingdom Come-at night while carrying lighted torches, eventually getting to the bottom of the hill to light the ski resort’s Christmas tree. Round was leading the parade of skiers-as he had for several years-when he suddenly veered to his left and skied beyond the edge of the ski run. A ski lift was located on the edge of the ski run and, underneath the ski lift, were four permanent snow-making machines installed at various points up the hill. At about the half-way point of the ski hill, Round crossed into this area, collided with a snow-making machine, and sustained severe injuries that proved fatal.
On June 24, 2020, Round’s wife, Cheryle A. Round, filed this negligence action, alleging that defendant failed to comply with duties imposed under the SASA, including by:
a. Failing to ensure that the snow-making equipment was properly marked or plainly visible to skiers;
b. Failing to properly light the ski area during the event;
c. Failing to mark the snow-making machine with a visible sign or other warning device to warn approaching skiers;
d. Failing to construct or maintain physical barriers to prevent skiers from colliding with the snow-making machine; and
e. Failing to install protective padding around the snow-making machine to prevent serious injuries from collisions.
In response to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant asserted affirmative defenses, including that it was immune and plaintiff’s claim was barred by the SASA. Defendant also filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract, indemnification, and other claims based on the release Round had signed.
On November 2, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) and (C)(10) as to defendant’s defense of immunity under the SASA. Plaintiff argued that her decedent collided with a snow-making machine that was neither properly marked nor plainly visible during the nighttime event; thus, the SASA did not presume-as set forth under MCL 408.342(2)-that her decedent assumed the risk of being injured in this situation. Defendant responded to plaintiff’s motion arguing, in relevant part, that plaintiff’s decedent assumed the risk of skiing in the event and signed a release to that effect. But, further, defendant owed no duty to mark or make plainly visible the snow-making machine at issue because it was 10 feet tall and was not located on the ski run.
On January 4, 2021, the trial court rendered its decision and order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition holding, in relevant part, that “the injury causing hazard (e.g. the snow-making equipment) was neither properly marked nor plainly visible, [and thus], the Decedent cannot be said to have assumed the inherent risk of the hazard and recovery is not precluded by SASA.”
Defendant filed its application for leave to appeal the trial court’s order which was denied “for failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review.” See Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 18, 2021 (Docket No. 356123).
On April 27, 2021, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10), arguing that defendant strictly complied with its duties mandated by the SASA. And contrary to plaintiff’s claims, defendant had no duty under the SASA to light, mark, or pad the snow-making machine at issue because it is undisputed that (1) the ski run was not open to the public when plaintiff’s decedent was fatally injured, (2) the snow-making machine extended more than six feet above the snow surface; it was ten feet above the snow surface, and (3) the snow-making machine was located off of the ski run; it was nine feet away from the groomed edge of the ski run known as Kingdom Come. Moreover, plaintiff’s decedent breached his duties under the SASA to “maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.” MCL 408.341(1). The video evidence showed that plaintiff’s decedent abruptly departed from the ski run without effort to correct his course before striking the snow-making machine. Defendant supported its motion with numerous exhibits, including deposition testimony transcripts, affidavits, an incident report, and photographs.
Plaintiff responded to defendant’s motion for summary disposition arguing, in relevant part, that the trial court already decided that plaintiff’s decedent did not assume the risk in this case, and thus, defendant was not entitled to immunity under the SASA. Further, plaintiff argued, (1) the ski run was open to the public when this incident occurred, (2) the snow-making machine was less than 6 feet above the snow surface when plaintiff’s expert, Stanley Gale, performed a site visit on March 6, 2021, and (3) the snow-making machine was located on the skiable portion of the trail, as Gale also determined, but, in any case, “it is the snow-making operations that must be located on the ski run-not the snow-making equipment itself.” Plaintiff supported her response with exhibits, including Gale’s investigative report.
Defendant replied to plaintiff’s response to its motion for summary disposition, arguing that (1) the ski run was not open to the public at the time of the accident, a fact supported by the deposition testimony of witnesses, the incident report, and even the deposition testimony of plaintiff’s purported expert, Stanley Gale; (2) the snow-making machine extended more than six feet above the snow surface at the time of the accident and Gale’s measurement using only his ski to gauge the distance more than one year after the accident was incompetent to refute defendant’s evidence; and (3) the snow-making machine was not located on the ski run, as even plaintiff’s decedent’s wife, son, and daughter admitted, and as testified to by other witnesses. Defendant supported its response with exhibits, including deposition testimony transcripts.
On June 1, 2021, the trial court heard oral argument on defendant’s motion and the parties argued consistently with their briefs. On June 27, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition, holding that (1) whether the ski run was open to the public at the time of the accident is irrelevant but, in any case, was a question of fact for the jury considering that not just employees participated in the event; (2) whether the height of the snow-making machine at issue was six feet above the snow surface was a question of fact for the jury because plaintiff’s expert found it to be less than six feet and the machine had been manipulated; and (3) whether the snow-making equipment was located on the ski run was a question of fact for the jury because plaintiff’s expert stated that it was on a skiable portion of the trail. The court did not address defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s decedent breached his duties under MCL 408.341(1) of the SASA to “maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.” Accordingly, the court concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed that must be decided by a jury, and thus, defendant’s motion was denied.
On July 16, 2021, defendant filed its application for leave to appeal arguing that preemptory reversal was required but, at minimum, leave to appeal should be granted. The snow-making equipment at issue in this case was not located on a ski run, and thus, defendant owed no duty to mark the snow-making equipment and cannot be held liable for plaintiff decedent’s accident. This Court granted leave to appeal. Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 1, 2021 (Docket No. 357849). On November 8, 2021, while this appeal was pending, plaintiff filed a motion to affirm which this Court denied. Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 24, 2021 (Docket No. 357849).
On appeal, defendant argues that it was entitled to summary disposition because the snow-making equipment at issue was not located on a ski run; thus, defendant had no duty to place a warning sign on that equipment and defendant cannot be held liable for plaintiff’s decedent’s accident. We agree.
A trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Hughes v Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 277 Mich.App. 268, 273; 744 N.W.2d 10 (2007). Defendant’s motion for summary disposition was brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity), (C)(8) (failure to state a claim), and (C)(10) (no material factual issue), but was supported by numerous exhibits. Although the trial court did not indicate under which subrule it denied defendant’s motion, the court considered matters outside of the pleadings and so we review the motion as having been denied under MCR 2.116(C)(10). See id.; see also Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich. 429, 434; 526 N.W.2d 879 (1994).
Further, issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich. 20, 23; 664 N.W.2d 756 (2003). Our purpose in reviewing questions of statutory construction is to discern and give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich. 192, 196; 694 N.W.2d 544 (2005). Our analysis begins by examining the plain language of the statute; if the language is unambiguous, no judicial construction is required or permitted and the statute must be enforced as written, giving its words their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. (citation omitted).
The SASA was enacted in 1962 “in an effort to provide some immunity for ski-area operators from personal-injury suits by injured skiers.” Anderson, 469 Mich. at 23. It delineates duties applicable to ski-area operators and to skiers. As to the duties imposed on skiers, and their acceptance of the associated risks of skiing, MCL 408.342 of the SASA provides, in part:
(2) Each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts the dangers that inhere in that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries which can result from variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare sports; rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris; collisions with ski lift towers and their components, with other skiers, or with properly marked or plainly visible snow-making or snow-grooming equipment.
This provision has been referred to as an “assumption-of-risk provision,” and means that a skier has assumed the risk of being injured by these and similar dangers as inherent in the sport of skiing. Rusnak v Walker, 273 Mich.App. 299, 301, 304; 729 N.W.2d 542 (2007). Thus, when a skier’s injury arises from one of these dangers considered to be inherent in the sport of skiing, the ski-area operator is immune from liability unless the ski-area operator violated a specific duty imposed by the SASA that resulted in injury. Id. at 304-305, 313-314; see also Kent v Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 240 Mich.App. 731, 742-744; 613 N.W.2d 383 (2000).
Relevant to this case is the immunity related to snow-making equipment. Under MCL 408.342(2), ski-area operators are immune from liability for collisions with snow-making equipment, if that equipment is “properly marked or plainly visible.” Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary disposition which addressed SASA’s immunity provision, MCL 408.342(2). Specifically, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to immunity because plaintiff’s decedent did not assume the risk of skiing into the unmarked and not plainly visible snow-making equipment at issue in this case. The trial court agreed and granted plaintiff’s motion, holding that the snow-making equipment was neither properly marked nor plainly visible, and thus, plaintiff’s decedent cannot be charged with assuming this risk as inherent in the sport of skiing so liability was not precluded under the SASA.
Thereafter, defendant filed the motion for summary disposition at issue here, arguing that the snow-making equipment at issue in this case actually did not have to be “properly marked or plainly visible” because it was not on the ski run; rather, plaintiff’s decedent skied off of the ski run and into an area that was not meant for skiing where he collided with the snow-making equipment. In other words, defendant argued that it breached no duty imposed by the SASA with regard to the snow-making equipment, and thus, could not be held liable for plaintiff’s decedent’s accident.
The duty provision pertaining to snow-making equipment is codified in MCL 408.326a(b) and Mich. Admin Code, R 408.80(2). These provisions address the issue that was not decided by plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition, i.e., whether defendant, as the ski-area operator, had a duty to mark the snow-making equipment in this case. If SASA did not require marking this equipment with a warning sign or other device, defendant did not breach any statutory duty to plaintiff and summary disposition in favor of defendant would be appropriate.
MCL 408.326a provides in relevant part:
Each ski area operator shall, with respect to operation of a ski area, do all of the following:
* * *
(b) Mark with a visible sign or other warning device the location of any hydrant or similar fixture or equipment used in snow-making operations located on a ski run, as prescribed by rules promulgated [by the Ski Area Safety Board].
The corresponding administrative rule, Mich. Admin Code, R 408.80, prescribes the conditions under which snow-making equipment must be marked, stating:
(1) When a ski run, slope, or trail is open to the public, the ski area operator shall mark snowmaking devices as stated in this rule.
(2) A ski area operator shall mark the location of any hydrant, snow gun, or similar fixture or equipment which is used in snowmaking operations located on a ski run and which extends less than 6 feet above the snow surface with a caution sign that has contrasting colors. An orange marking disc, with a minimum diameter of 8 inches, may be used as a caution sign. One sign is adequate for all devices within an area 3 feet on either side of the sign and 10 feet in the downhill direction of the ski run from the sign.
The dispositive issue here is whether the snow-making equipment at issue was “located on a ski run,” as set forth in MCL 408.326a(b) and R 408.80(2).[2] We conclude that it was not. Accordingly, defendant was not in violation of the SASA, and thus, could not be held liable for plaintiff’s decedent’s accident.
The SASA does not define the phrase “ski run.” When a statute does not define a term, it is construed in accordance with its ordinary and generally accepted meaning. Popma v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 446 Mich. 460, 470; 521 N.W.2d 831 (1994). At minimum, the plain meaning of the phrase “ski run” for purposes of the SASA must include a path or route expected to be used for skiing down a hill. Indeed, ski runs are named, designed, constructed, groomed, and designated as the route skiers are to use for skiing down a particular hill. As this Court similarly noted in Rhoda v O’Dovero, Inc, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 24, 2016 (Docket No. 321363), unpub op at 8: “Although the SASA does not define the terms ‘run,’ ‘slope’ or ‘trail,’ the plain, ordinary and common meanings of these terms encompass the paths a skier or snowboarder takes to get down a hill, including those paths designed and constructed by the ski operator for precisely that purpose.”[3]
In this case, no genuine issue of material fact exists-the snow-making equipment at issue was not located on the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. The evidence presented by defendant in support of its argument included deposition testimony from witnesses. Plaintiff admitted during her deposition that she saw a video taken the night of the accident and she saw that her decedent actually veered the wrong way before striking the equipment-that had been in the same place for years-which was located off of the ski trail. Rick Van Tongeren, the snow sports school manager at the Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he watched a video taken the night of the incident and plaintiff’s decedent was skiing out of control in the wrong direction, i.e., not on the expected path, and was skiing very fast before the accident.
Mike Moreen, the director of the ski patrol at the Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he was skiing in the parade and was at the back of the lineup when he received a radio call from Fred Hunt that ski patrol was needed “skier’s left off of ski run about halfway down the hill.” When Moreen arrived to help Round, he saw that Round was “in a difficult location down off of the skiing surface, underneath the snow gun, underneath the structure, the stanchion of the snow gun . . . .” Moreen noted that they were “in deep snow” and “were off of the skiing surface quite a ways, several feet.” Round was down an embankment; about 10 to 15 feet away. And after they got Round on the toboggan to remove him from the accident site, “it probably took four or five repetitions to get him from the snow gun up to the skiing surface.”
Mark Durance, a member of the ski patrol at the Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he was skiing in the parade and was the second person from the last in the lineup. When the radio call came in, Durance followed Moreen to the accident site. Round was located about “ten feet or so off the ski run so it’s not a run.” Durance could not really determine Round’s condition “because he was so far off the existing run” that he could barely make observations. Ted Ewald, a ski instructor at Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he was skiing in the parade about 10 people from the front and he saw that “somebody went into the woods . . . .” But he did not see precisely what happened, the actual event; “I saw something in the woods when I skied by there.”
The evidence presented by defendant in support of its motion for summary disposition also included an incident report. The incident report included witness statements. One witness, Michael Casey, who was the third person from the front skiing in the parade, reported that he saw that Round-who was the leader of the parade-at one point seemed to be a lot further away than he should have been, indicating increased speed. He then saw Round “go off the ski hill into the woods.”
The incident report included a drawing of the snow-making machine at issue and depicted measurements taken the day after the accident. The drawing shows that the snow-making machine was located nine feet from the groomed trail; the machine sat between the groomed trail and trees, i.e., a “woods,” that was located 22 feet from the groomed trail; and the machine stood ten feet tall above the snow surface. The drafter of the drawing, Tom Murton, averred in an affidavit that he drew the diagram after the accident and the precise measurements were accurate. Murton also testified in a deposition about his investigation of the accident-including the measurements taken-that occurred the day after the accident. He testified that the snow-making equipment at issue is not part of Kingdom Come’s groomed ski surface or the ski run itself and had been in the same location permanently since at least the mid-1990s when he began working there. Photographs were also submitted in support of defendant’s motion for summary disposition and they show the scene of the accident, including the snow-making machine at issue, and it is clear that the machine was very close to the wooded area and not on the ski run known as Kingdom Come.
In opposition to defendant’s claim that it had no duty to mark the snow-making equipment at issue in this case because it was “not located on a ski run,” plaintiff argued that the machine was located on a skiable portion of the trail. Plaintiff supported that argument with a report from her purported expert, Gale, which stated that the snow-making machine was located on the skiable portion of the trail. But it is unclear as to what Gale considered a “skiable portion of the trail.” At issue here was the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. Any area where there is snow is likely to be considered by some people as “skiable,” or able to be skied on-even areas that are not expected to be skied on and areas not designed or designated for skiing. We cannot agree with the trial court that Gale’s statement, alone-and which is unsupported by precise measurements or other evidence-is sufficient to establish a genuine issue of disputed fact that warrants a trial. The party filing a motion for summary disposition has the initial burden of supporting its position with documentary evidence and the party opposing that motion must then establish by evidentiary materials that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich. 358, 362; 547 N.W.2d 314 (1996). Defendant provided a plethora of evidence establishing that plaintiff’s decedent did not encounter and collide with the snow-making equipment on the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. Gale’s claim that the snow-making equipment was located on a “skiable portion of the trail” is not sufficient to establish that it was “located on a ski run,” which would give rise to a duty for defendant to mark that equipment with a caution sign or other warning device.
And most obviously in this case, if the snow-making machine at issue was, in fact, located on the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come-within the contemplation of R 408.80(2), other skiers in the Tannenbaum Blitzen parade would likely have collided with-or at least seen and avoided-that equipment. There is no such evidence. The SASA imposes certain and specific duties on ski-area operators, one of which is to mark the location of snow-making equipment “located on a ski run and which extends less than 6 feet above the snow surface . . . .” Mich. Admin Code, R 408.80(2); see also MCL 408.326a(b). Clearly, snow-making equipment that is located on a ski run and which extends more than 6 feet above the snow surface need not be marked. This balancing of responsibilities recognizes that skiers are charged with exercising care for their own safety by avoiding obvious hazards they might encounter skiing down a hill, and ski-area operators are charged with providing warnings when a hazard that a skier might encounter skiing down a hill is less likely to be obvious. A ski-area operator is not charged by law with the impossible task of making its ski runs or every allegedly “skiable” area at its facility “accident proof.” Ski-area operators are not absolute insurers of safety, particularly with regard to those skiers who intentionally or inadvertently ski off the path or route expected to be used for skiing down a particular hill. This conclusion is consistent with the SASA’s purpose of “promoting safety, reducing litigation and stabilizing the economic conditions in the ski resort industry,” Grieb v Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 155 Mich.App. 484, 487; 400 N.W.2d 653 (1986), while at the same time ensures that ski-area operators stay vigilant and responsible for providing reasonably safe skiing conditions in the areas their patrons are invited, and expected, to ski.
In this case, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition because defendant had no duty under the SASA to mark the location of the snow-making equipment that plaintiff’s decedent collided with, allegedly causing his fatal injuries. There is no genuine issue of fact that the snow-making equipment was not located on the ski run, i.e., the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s decision. This matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition and dismissing this case.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
———
Notes:
[1]
Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 1, 2021 (Docket No. 357849).
[2] To the extent plaintiff argues that it was the snow-making operations that must be on the ski run and not the snow-making equipment itself, we reject that argument as inconsistent with the plain language of MCL 408.326a(b) and R 408.80(2).
[3] Although not binding precedent, a court may consider unpublished opinions for their instructive or persuasive value. Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich.App. 292, 307; 911 N.W.2d 219 (2017).
———
Round v. Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)
Posted: September 26, 2022 Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Michigan, Ski Area | Tags: fatality, Michigan, Michigan Ski Area Safety Act, SASA, ski area, ski run, Snow Making, Snow Making Equipment Leave a commentRound v. Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC (Mich. App. 2022)
CHERYLE A. ROUND, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF CHARLES R. ROUND, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee,
v.
TRINIDAD RESORT & CLUB, LLC,Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant.
No. 357849
Court of Appeals of Michigan
September 15, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
Antrim County Circuit Court LC No. 20-009218-NO
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Garrett and Yates, JJ.
Per Curiam
Defendant appeals by leave granted[1] an order denying its motion for summary disposition which asserted that it was entitled to immunity under Michigan’s Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.321 et seq., because plaintiff could not demonstrate noncompliance with a statutory duty; the snow-making equipment that plaintiff’s decedent collided with was not located on the ski run so a warning sign was not required. We agree and reverse.
On December 21, 2019, plaintiff’s decedent, Charles R. Round, died after allegedly sustaining fatal injuries when he collided with snow-making equipment at Schuss Mountain, a ski area owned and operated by defendant. At the time, Round was participating in an event called the Tannenbaum Blitzen parade whereby volunteer skiers ski down an unlit hill-known as Kingdom Come-at night while carrying lighted torches, eventually getting to the bottom of the hill to light the ski resort’s Christmas tree. Round was leading the parade of skiers-as he had for several years-when he suddenly veered to his left and skied beyond the edge of the ski run. A ski lift was located on the edge of the ski run and, underneath the ski lift, were four permanent snow-making machines installed at various points up the hill. At about the half-way point of the ski hill, Round crossed into this area, collided with a snow-making machine, and sustained severe injuries that proved fatal.
On June 24, 2020, Round’s wife, Cheryle A. Round, filed this negligence action, alleging that defendant failed to comply with duties imposed under the SASA, including by:
a. Failing to ensure that the snow-making equipment was properly marked or plainly visible to skiers;
b. Failing to properly light the ski area during the event;
c. Failing to mark the snow-making machine with a visible sign or other warning device to warn approaching skiers;
d. Failing to construct or maintain physical barriers to prevent skiers from colliding with the snow-making machine; and
e. Failing to install protective padding around the snow-making machine to prevent serious injuries from collisions.
In response to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant asserted affirmative defenses, including that it was immune and plaintiff’s claim was barred by the SASA. Defendant also filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract, indemnification, and other claims based on the release Round had signed.
On November 2, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) and (C)(10) as to defendant’s defense of immunity under the SASA. Plaintiff argued that her decedent collided with a snow-making machine that was neither properly marked nor plainly visible during the nighttime event; thus, the SASA did not presume-as set forth under MCL 408.342(2)-that her decedent assumed the risk of being injured in this situation. Defendant responded to plaintiff’s motion arguing, in relevant part, that plaintiff’s decedent assumed the risk of skiing in the event and signed a release to that effect. But, further, defendant owed no duty to mark or make plainly visible the snow-making machine at issue because it was 10 feet tall and was not located on the ski run.
On January 4, 2021, the trial court rendered its decision and order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition holding, in relevant part, that “the injury causing hazard (e.g. the snow-making equipment) was neither properly marked nor plainly visible, [and thus], the Decedent cannot be said to have assumed the inherent risk of the hazard and recovery is not precluded by SASA.”
Defendant filed its application for leave to appeal the trial court’s order which was denied “for failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review.” See Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 18, 2021 (Docket No. 356123).
On April 27, 2021, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10), arguing that defendant strictly complied with its duties mandated by the SASA. And contrary to plaintiff’s claims, defendant had no duty under the SASA to light, mark, or pad the snow-making machine at issue because it is undisputed that (1) the ski run was not open to the public when plaintiff’s decedent was fatally injured, (2) the snow-making machine extended more than six feet above the snow surface; it was ten feet above the snow surface, and (3) the snow-making machine was located off of the ski run; it was nine feet away from the groomed edge of the ski run known as Kingdom Come. Moreover, plaintiff’s decedent breached his duties under the SASA to “maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.” MCL 408.341(1). The video evidence showed that plaintiff’s decedent abruptly departed from the ski run without effort to correct his course before striking the snow-making machine. Defendant supported its motion with numerous exhibits, including deposition testimony transcripts, affidavits, an incident report, and photographs.
Plaintiff responded to defendant’s motion for summary disposition arguing, in relevant part, that the trial court already decided that plaintiff’s decedent did not assume the risk in this case, and thus, defendant was not entitled to immunity under the SASA. Further, plaintiff argued, (1) the ski run was open to the public when this incident occurred, (2) the snow-making machine was less than 6 feet above the snow surface when plaintiff’s expert, Stanley Gale, performed a site visit on March 6, 2021, and (3) the snow-making machine was located on the skiable portion of the trail, as Gale also determined, but, in any case, “it is the snow-making operations that must be located on the ski run-not the snow-making equipment itself.” Plaintiff supported her response with exhibits, including Gale’s investigative report.
Defendant replied to plaintiff’s response to its motion for summary disposition, arguing that (1) the ski run was not open to the public at the time of the accident, a fact supported by the deposition testimony of witnesses, the incident report, and even the deposition testimony of plaintiff’s purported expert, Stanley Gale; (2) the snow-making machine extended more than six feet above the snow surface at the time of the accident and Gale’s measurement using only his ski to gauge the distance more than one year after the accident was incompetent to refute defendant’s evidence; and (3) the snow-making machine was not located on the ski run, as even plaintiff’s decedent’s wife, son, and daughter admitted, and as testified to by other witnesses. Defendant supported its response with exhibits, including deposition testimony transcripts.
On June 1, 2021, the trial court heard oral argument on defendant’s motion and the parties argued consistently with their briefs. On June 27, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition, holding that (1) whether the ski run was open to the public at the time of the accident is irrelevant but, in any case, was a question of fact for the jury considering that not just employees participated in the event; (2) whether the height of the snow-making machine at issue was six feet above the snow surface was a question of fact for the jury because plaintiff’s expert found it to be less than six feet and the machine had been manipulated; and (3) whether the snow-making equipment was located on the ski run was a question of fact for the jury because plaintiff’s expert stated that it was on a skiable portion of the trail. The court did not address defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s decedent breached his duties under MCL 408.341(1) of the SASA to “maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times.” Accordingly, the court concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed that must be decided by a jury, and thus, defendant’s motion was denied.
On July 16, 2021, defendant filed its application for leave to appeal arguing that preemptory reversal was required but, at minimum, leave to appeal should be granted. The snow-making equipment at issue in this case was not located on a ski run, and thus, defendant owed no duty to mark the snow-making equipment and cannot be held liable for plaintiff decedent’s accident. This Court granted leave to appeal. Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 1, 2021 (Docket No. 357849). On November 8, 2021, while this appeal was pending, plaintiff filed a motion to affirm which this Court denied. Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 24, 2021 (Docket No. 357849).
On appeal, defendant argues that it was entitled to summary disposition because the snow-making equipment at issue was not located on a ski run; thus, defendant had no duty to place a warning sign on that equipment and defendant cannot be held liable for plaintiff’s decedent’s accident. We agree.
A trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Hughes v Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 277 Mich.App. 268, 273; 744 N.W.2d 10 (2007). Defendant’s motion for summary disposition was brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity), (C)(8) (failure to state a claim), and (C)(10) (no material factual issue), but was supported by numerous exhibits. Although the trial court did not indicate under which subrule it denied defendant’s motion, the court considered matters outside of the pleadings and so we review the motion as having been denied under MCR 2.116(C)(10). See id.; see also Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich. 429, 434; 526 N.W.2d 879 (1994).
Further, issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Anderson v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc, 469 Mich. 20, 23; 664 N.W.2d 756 (2003). Our purpose in reviewing questions of statutory construction is to discern and give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich. 192, 196; 694 N.W.2d 544 (2005). Our analysis begins by examining the plain language of the statute; if the language is unambiguous, no judicial construction is required or permitted and the statute must be enforced as written, giving its words their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. (citation omitted).
The SASA was enacted in 1962 “in an effort to provide some immunity for ski-area operators from personal-injury suits by injured skiers.” Anderson, 469 Mich. at 23. It delineates duties applicable to ski-area operators and to skiers. As to the duties imposed on skiers, and their acceptance of the associated risks of skiing, MCL 408.342 of the SASA provides, in part:
(2) Each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts the dangers that inhere in that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries which can result from variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare sports; rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris; collisions with ski lift towers and their components, with other skiers, or with properly marked or plainly visible snow-making or snow-grooming equipment.
This provision has been referred to as an “assumption-of-risk provision,” and means that a skier has assumed the risk of being injured by these and similar dangers as inherent in the sport of skiing. Rusnak v Walker, 273 Mich.App. 299, 301, 304; 729 N.W.2d 542 (2007). Thus, when a skier’s injury arises from one of these dangers considered to be inherent in the sport of skiing, the ski-area operator is immune from liability unless the ski-area operator violated a specific duty imposed by the SASA that resulted in injury. Id. at 304-305, 313-314; see also Kent v Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 240 Mich.App. 731, 742-744; 613 N.W.2d 383 (2000).
Relevant to this case is the immunity related to snow-making equipment. Under MCL 408.342(2), ski-area operators are immune from liability for collisions with snow-making equipment, if that equipment is “properly marked or plainly visible.” Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary disposition which addressed SASA’s immunity provision, MCL 408.342(2). Specifically, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to immunity because plaintiff’s decedent did not assume the risk of skiing into the unmarked and not plainly visible snow-making equipment at issue in this case. The trial court agreed and granted plaintiff’s motion, holding that the snow-making equipment was neither properly marked nor plainly visible, and thus, plaintiff’s decedent cannot be charged with assuming this risk as inherent in the sport of skiing so liability was not precluded under the SASA.
Thereafter, defendant filed the motion for summary disposition at issue here, arguing that the snow-making equipment at issue in this case actually did not have to be “properly marked or plainly visible” because it was not on the ski run; rather, plaintiff’s decedent skied off of the ski run and into an area that was not meant for skiing where he collided with the snow-making equipment. In other words, defendant argued that it breached no duty imposed by the SASA with regard to the snow-making equipment, and thus, could not be held liable for plaintiff’s decedent’s accident.
The duty provision pertaining to snow-making equipment is codified in MCL 408.326a(b) and Mich. Admin Code, R 408.80(2). These provisions address the issue that was not decided by plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition, i.e., whether defendant, as the ski-area operator, had a duty to mark the snow-making equipment in this case. If SASA did not require marking this equipment with a warning sign or other device, defendant did not breach any statutory duty to plaintiff and summary disposition in favor of defendant would be appropriate.
MCL 408.326a provides in relevant part:
Each ski area operator shall, with respect to operation of a ski area, do all of the following:
* * *
(b) Mark with a visible sign or other warning device the location of any hydrant or similar fixture or equipment used in snow-making operations located on a ski run, as prescribed by rules promulgated [by the Ski Area Safety Board].
The corresponding administrative rule, Mich. Admin Code, R 408.80, prescribes the conditions under which snow-making equipment must be marked, stating:
(1) When a ski run, slope, or trail is open to the public, the ski area operator shall mark snowmaking devices as stated in this rule.
(2) A ski area operator shall mark the location of any hydrant, snow gun, or similar fixture or equipment which is used in snowmaking operations located on a ski run and which extends less than 6 feet above the snow surface with a caution sign that has contrasting colors. An orange marking disc, with a minimum diameter of 8 inches, may be used as a caution sign. One sign is adequate for all devices within an area 3 feet on either side of the sign and 10 feet in the downhill direction of the ski run from the sign.
The dispositive issue here is whether the snow-making equipment at issue was “located on a ski run,” as set forth in MCL 408.326a(b) and R 408.80(2).[2] We conclude that it was not. Accordingly, defendant was not in violation of the SASA, and thus, could not be held liable for plaintiff’s decedent’s accident.
The SASA does not define the phrase “ski run.” When a statute does not define a term, it is construed in accordance with its ordinary and generally accepted meaning. Popma v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 446 Mich. 460, 470; 521 N.W.2d 831 (1994). At minimum, the plain meaning of the phrase “ski run” for purposes of the SASA must include a path or route expected to be used for skiing down a hill. Indeed, ski runs are named, designed, constructed, groomed, and designated as the route skiers are to use for skiing down a particular hill. As this Court similarly noted in Rhoda v O’Dovero, Inc, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 24, 2016 (Docket No. 321363), unpub op at 8: “Although the SASA does not define the terms ‘run,’ ‘slope’ or ‘trail,’ the plain, ordinary and common meanings of these terms encompass the paths a skier or snowboarder takes to get down a hill, including those paths designed and constructed by the ski operator for precisely that purpose.”[3]
In this case, no genuine issue of material fact exists-the snow-making equipment at issue was not located on the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. The evidence presented by defendant in support of its argument included deposition testimony from witnesses. Plaintiff admitted during her deposition that she saw a video taken the night of the accident and she saw that her decedent actually veered the wrong way before striking the equipment-that had been in the same place for years-which was located off of the ski trail. Rick Van Tongeren, the snow sports school manager at the Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he watched a video taken the night of the incident and plaintiff’s decedent was skiing out of control in the wrong direction, i.e., not on the expected path, and was skiing very fast before the accident.
Mike Moreen, the director of the ski patrol at the Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he was skiing in the parade and was at the back of the lineup when he received a radio call from Fred Hunt that ski patrol was needed “skier’s left off of ski run about halfway down the hill.” When Moreen arrived to help Round, he saw that Round was “in a difficult location down off of the skiing surface, underneath the snow gun, underneath the structure, the stanchion of the snow gun . . . .” Moreen noted that they were “in deep snow” and “were off of the skiing surface quite a ways, several feet.” Round was down an embankment; about 10 to 15 feet away. And after they got Round on the toboggan to remove him from the accident site, “it probably took four or five repetitions to get him from the snow gun up to the skiing surface.”
Mark Durance, a member of the ski patrol at the Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he was skiing in the parade and was the second person from the last in the lineup. When the radio call came in, Durance followed Moreen to the accident site. Round was located about “ten feet or so off the ski run so it’s not a run.” Durance could not really determine Round’s condition “because he was so far off the existing run” that he could barely make observations. Ted Ewald, a ski instructor at Shanty Creek Resort, testified that he was skiing in the parade about 10 people from the front and he saw that “somebody went into the woods . . . .” But he did not see precisely what happened, the actual event; “I saw something in the woods when I skied by there.”
The evidence presented by defendant in support of its motion for summary disposition also included an incident report. The incident report included witness statements. One witness, Michael Casey, who was the third person from the front skiing in the parade, reported that he saw that Round-who was the leader of the parade-at one point seemed to be a lot further away than he should have been, indicating increased speed. He then saw Round “go off the ski hill into the woods.”
The incident report included a drawing of the snow-making machine at issue and depicted measurements taken the day after the accident. The drawing shows that the snow-making machine was located nine feet from the groomed trail; the machine sat between the groomed trail and trees, i.e., a “woods,” that was located 22 feet from the groomed trail; and the machine stood ten feet tall above the snow surface. The drafter of the drawing, Tom Murton, averred in an affidavit that he drew the diagram after the accident and the precise measurements were accurate. Murton also testified in a deposition about his investigation of the accident-including the measurements taken-that occurred the day after the accident. He testified that the snow-making equipment at issue is not part of Kingdom Come’s groomed ski surface or the ski run itself and had been in the same location permanently since at least the mid-1990s when he began working there. Photographs were also submitted in support of defendant’s motion for summary disposition and they show the scene of the accident, including the snow-making machine at issue, and it is clear that the machine was very close to the wooded area and not on the ski run known as Kingdom Come.
In opposition to defendant’s claim that it had no duty to mark the snow-making equipment at issue in this case because it was “not located on a ski run,” plaintiff argued that the machine was located on a skiable portion of the trail. Plaintiff supported that argument with a report from her purported expert, Gale, which stated that the snow-making machine was located on the skiable portion of the trail. But it is unclear as to what Gale considered a “skiable portion of the trail.” At issue here was the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. Any area where there is snow is likely to be considered by some people as “skiable,” or able to be skied on-even areas that are not expected to be skied on and areas not designed or designated for skiing. We cannot agree with the trial court that Gale’s statement, alone-and which is unsupported by precise measurements or other evidence-is sufficient to establish a genuine issue of disputed fact that warrants a trial. The party filing a motion for summary disposition has the initial burden of supporting its position with documentary evidence and the party opposing that motion must then establish by evidentiary materials that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich. 358, 362; 547 N.W.2d 314 (1996). Defendant provided a plethora of evidence establishing that plaintiff’s decedent did not encounter and collide with the snow-making equipment on the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. Gale’s claim that the snow-making equipment was located on a “skiable portion of the trail” is not sufficient to establish that it was “located on a ski run,” which would give rise to a duty for defendant to mark that equipment with a caution sign or other warning device.
And most obviously in this case, if the snow-making machine at issue was, in fact, located on the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come-within the contemplation of R 408.80(2), other skiers in the Tannenbaum Blitzen parade would likely have collided with-or at least seen and avoided-that equipment. There is no such evidence. The SASA imposes certain and specific duties on ski-area operators, one of which is to mark the location of snow-making equipment “located on a ski run and which extends less than 6 feet above the snow surface . . . .” Mich. Admin Code, R 408.80(2); see also MCL 408.326a(b). Clearly, snow-making equipment that is located on a ski run and which extends more than 6 feet above the snow surface need not be marked. This balancing of responsibilities recognizes that skiers are charged with exercising care for their own safety by avoiding obvious hazards they might encounter skiing down a hill, and ski-area operators are charged with providing warnings when a hazard that a skier might encounter skiing down a hill is less likely to be obvious. A ski-area operator is not charged by law with the impossible task of making its ski runs or every allegedly “skiable” area at its facility “accident proof.” Ski-area operators are not absolute insurers of safety, particularly with regard to those skiers who intentionally or inadvertently ski off the path or route expected to be used for skiing down a particular hill. This conclusion is consistent with the SASA’s purpose of “promoting safety, reducing litigation and stabilizing the economic conditions in the ski resort industry,” Grieb v Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 155 Mich.App. 484, 487; 400 N.W.2d 653 (1986), while at the same time ensures that ski-area operators stay vigilant and responsible for providing reasonably safe skiing conditions in the areas their patrons are invited, and expected, to ski.
In this case, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition because defendant had no duty under the SASA to mark the location of the snow-making equipment that plaintiff’s decedent collided with, allegedly causing his fatal injuries. There is no genuine issue of fact that the snow-making equipment was not located on the ski run, i.e., the path or route expected to be used for skiing down Kingdom Come. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s decision. This matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition and dismissing this case.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
———
Notes:
[1]
Round v Trinidad Resort & Club, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 1, 2021 (Docket No. 357849).
[2] To the extent plaintiff argues that it was the snow-making operations that must be on the ski run and not the snow-making equipment itself, we reject that argument as inconsistent with the plain language of MCL 408.326a(b) and R 408.80(2).
[3] Although not binding precedent, a court may consider unpublished opinions for their instructive or persuasive value. Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich.App. 292, 307; 911 N.W.2d 219 (2017).
———
Just because your son died, does not mean you get money
Posted: January 19, 2022 Filed under: Oregon, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Cause, fatality, Injury, Mt. Bachelor Ski and Summer Resort, Negligence, skiing, snowboarding, Tree Well Leave a commentState: Oregon
Most non-attorneys think this way. I got hurt; therefore, someone owes me money. I even got an email from someone who admitted they were not paying attention and walked off the curb and were injured. They wanted to sue. They did not know who to sue, but simply because they were injured, they thought they were owed money.
Or in this example, it may be pain. I hurt because I lost a loved one, therefore, you owe me money.
In this case, there are two different lawsuits going against Mt. Bachelor for two tree well deaths that occurred on the same day four years ago. The father of one of the deceased made this statement in the article.
“If you have four accidents on the highway, they will fix that turn; they will do something,” Braun said Friday. “They will close it, they will fix it.”
When someone has a duty to keep the highways safe, then that occurs. However, most states do not owe you a duty to keep highways safe. The poor father’s knowledge of how the law works is going to confuse him even more when he loses his lawsuit.
And I suspect that his deceased son was not skiing fresh powder because it was easy, because there was no risk. Skiing is risky and most of us ski for that risk.
What’s worse, is the writer is supporting this misinformation by writing about it. If it is in the news, it must be true.
It is a perfect combination to write a bad article to make someone feel worse. The only people who are going to “win” in this mess is the writer, who will move on and the attorneys.
It also appears that the plaintiff’s attorneys are not skiers or boarders. Allegedly, the complaint has an allegation that Mt. Bachelor is negligent because the ski area did not “mark the tree wells or monitor them.”
If Mt. Bachelor or anyone knew where the tree wells were, or even if there was a way to find them, I suspect they would. But if you have never skied fresh power after a dump, you have no idea what you are complaining about.
Why Is This Interesting?
It’s sad more than anything.
@MtBachelor #Lawsuit #SkiFatality @RecreationLaw #SkiLaw #SkiAreaLaw #RecLaw #RecreationLaw #OutdoorRecreationLaw #OutdoorLaw #OutdoorIndustry
Jim Moss
I’m an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the Outdoor Recreation Industry
I represent Manufactures, Outfitters, Guides, Reps, College & University’s, Camps, Youth Programs, Adventure Programs and Businesses
What do you think? Leave a comment below.
Copyright 2020 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
If you are interested in having me, write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
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, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw, Outdoor Recreation Insurance Risk Management and Law, Jim Moss, James H. Moss, James Moss,
One paragraph would have eliminated this lawsuit.
Posted: January 3, 2022 Filed under: Colorado, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Rock Climbing | Tags: fatality, Forum selection clause, Hameric, Jurisdiction and Venue, Keller Church of Christ, Novation, Rappelling, Release, Rock climbing, Waiver, WEI, Wilderness Expeditions Inc. 2 CommentsBadly written release and a bad attempt to tie two documents together almost cost outfitter
Hamric v. Wilderness Expeditions, Inc
State: Colorado, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Plaintiff: Alicia Hamric, individually, as representative of the Estate of Robert Gerald Hamric, and as next friend of Ava Hamric, a minor
Defendant: Wilderness Expeditions, Inc.
Plaintiff Claims: Negligence
Defendant Defenses: Release
Holding: For the defendant
Year: 2021
Summary
Badly written release and medical form with release language in them give the plaintiff the opportunity to win a lawsuit. However, a lawsuit where Colorado law is applied is going to support the release.
Facts
Members of the Keller Church of Christ in Keller, Texas, scheduled an outdoor excursion to Colorado, contracting with WEI for adventure planning and guide services. WEI is incorporated in Colorado and has its headquarters in Salida, Colorado. Jamie Garner served as the coordinator for the church group and the point-of-contact between the church members and WEI. The experience WEI provided included guides taking participants rappelling. WEI required all participants, before going on the outdoor excursion, to complete and initial a “Registration Form” and complete and sign a “Medical Form.”
WEI made the forms available to Mr. Garner for downloading and completion by the individual church members several months prior to the booked trip. Mr. Hamric initialed both blanks on the Registration Form and signed the Medical Form, dating it April 5, 2017. Andrew Sadousky, FNP-C, completed and signed the “Physician’s Evaluation” section of the Medical Form, certifying that Mr. Hamric was medically capable of participating in the outdoor activities listed on the form, including rappelling. Mr. Hamric’s signed forms were delivered to WEI upon the church group’s arrival in Colorado in July 2017.
After spending a night on WEI property, WEI guides took the church group, including Mr. Hamric, to a rappelling site known as “Quarry High.” Because the rappelling course had a section that WEI guides considered “scary,” the guides did not describe a particular overhang at the Quarry High site during the orientation session or before taking the church group on the rappelling course. Id. at 203.
Several members of the church group successfully descended Quarry High before Mr. Hamric attempted the rappel. As Mr. Hamric worked his way down the overhang portion of the course, he became inverted and was unable to right himself. Efforts to rescue Mr. Hamric proved unsuccessful, and he died of positional asphyxiation.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals is an appellate court that sits in Denver. The Tenth Circuit hears cases from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. The court, consequently, hears a few appeals of recreation cases.
This appealed covered four different legal issues. Three of the issues were procedural and won’t be reviewed. The fourth was the dismissal of the case by the lower-court magistrate on a motion for summary judgement because of the release.
The plaintiff argued the release should be read using Texas law because the release was read and signed in Texas.
There was no Jurisdiction and Venue Clause in the Release!
The defendant had the deceased sign two forms. One was a release, and the second was a medical form. Having a medical information formed signed is a quick give away that the defendant does not understand the legal issues involved. The defendant wrote both forms, so they conflicted with each other in some cases and attempted to tie the forms together. Neither really worked.
The plaintiff argued the forms were one because they conflicts would have made both forms basically invalid.
Further, language on the Medical Form is conflicting and ambiguous as to whether the two forms comprise a single agreement: Individuals who have not completed these forms will not be allowed to participate. I have carefully read all the sections of this agreement, understand its contents, and have initialed all sections of page 1 of this document. I have examined all the information given by myself, or my child. By the signature below, I certify that it is true and correct. Should this form and/or any wording be altered, it will not be accepted and the participant will not be allowed to participate.
Both the italicized language and the use of “forms” in the plural to describe the agreement support the conclusion that the Registration Form and the Medical Form are a single agreement. But the underlined language, using “form” in the singular, suggests the forms might constitute separate agreements. Otherwise, the singular use of “form” would suggest the unlikely result that a participant could not alter the wording of the Medical Form but could alter the wording of the Registration Form.
The plaintiff’s argument in many jurisdictions might have prevailed. However, the 10th circuit covers the outdoor recreation center of the universe, and state laws protect outdoor recreation, and outdoor recreation is a major source of income for these states. Consequently, any issues are going to lean towards protecting recreation.
After a lengthy review, the court found the forms were two different documents and ignored the medical form and the release like language in it.
We conclude, however, that this dispute of fact is not material to resolution of the primarily legal question regarding whether Mr. Hamric entered into a valid liability release with WEI.
The next issue is what law should apply to determine the validity of the release. Choice of laws is a complete course you can take in law school. I still have my Choice of Laws’ textbook after all these years because it is a complicated subject that hinges on minutia in some cases to determine what court will hear a case and what law will be applied.
The case was filed in the Federal Court covering Colorado. Since the defendant was not a Texas business or doing business in Texas, the lawsuit needed to be in the defendant’s state. Federal Court was chosen because disputes between citizens of two states should be held in a neutral court, which are the federal courts. A Texan might not feel they are getting a fair deal if they have to sue in a Colorado state court. That is called the venue. What court sitting where, will hear the case.
So, the decision on what court to sue in was somewhat limited. However, that is not the end. Once the court is picked the next argument is what law will be applied to the situation. The plaintiff argued Texas Law. Texas has stringent requirements on releases. The defendant argued Colorado law, which has much fewer requirements for releases.
Ms. Hamric further contends that under contract principles in the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, Texas law applies because Mr. Hamric was a Texas resident who completed the Registration Form and the Medical Form while in Texas.
Here is the court’s analysis on what states laws should apply.
A more specific section of the Restatement addressing contracts lacking a choice-of-law provision provides additional guidance: (1) The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in § 6. (2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties . . ., the contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include: (a) the place of contracting, (b) the place of negotiation of the contract, (c) the place of performance, (d) the location of the subject matter of the contract, and (e) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.
It is not a slam dunk for Colorado law. In this case, the plaintiff made a very good argument that Texas law should apply. The deceased was a Texas resident recruited in Texas by the defendant. The release had been given to the deceased in Texas, and he signed it in Texas. If the analysis ended there, Texas law would have applied.
There was more to the investigation the court is required to do.
We conclude that, under the Restatement, a Colorado court would apply Colorado law to determine the validity and enforceability of the liability release relied upon by WEI. First looking at § 6 of the Restatement, the liability release was drafted by a Colorado corporation to cover services provided exclusively in Colorado.
This argument switched the discussion from applying Texas law to Colorado law.
Applying out-of-state law to interpret the liability release would hinder commerce, as it would require WEI and other outdoor-recreation companies to know the law of the state in which a given participant lives. Such a rule would place a significant burden on outdoor-recreation companies who depend on out-of-state tourists for revenue because it would require a company like WEI to match the various requirements of the other forty-nine states. This approach would not give WEI the benefit of having logically molded its liability release to comply with Colorado law, the law of the state where WEI does business. Furthermore, Ms. Hamric’s primary argument for applying Texas law is that Mr. Hamric signed the forms in Texas. But a rule applying out-of-state law on that basis is likely to deter WEI from furnishing the liability release until a participant enters Colorado. And, while not providing participants the forms until arrival in Colorado might lessen WEI’s liability exposure under out-of-state law, such a practice would not benefit participants because it would pressure participants into a last-minute decision regarding whether to sign the liability release after having already traveled to Colorado for the outdoor excursion.
It is significant to note that the court looked at the issue of waiting until customers arrive in the state of Colorado to have them sign the release. The court intimated that doing so would put pressure on them to sign after already traveling to Colorado. Legally, that could be argued as duress, which voids a release or contract.
It is important to remember this point. If you are marketing out of state and book travel from out of state, you need to get your release in the hands of your out of state clients when they book the travel.
In a rare statement, the court also commented on the outdoor recreation industry in Colorado and the need for releases.
Colorado also has a strong interest in this matter. Colorado has a booming outdoor-recreation industry, in the form of skiing, hiking, climbing, camping, horseback riding, and rafting excursions. Colorado relies on tax receipts from the outdoor-recreation industry. And while many out-of-state individuals partake in these activities within Colorado, they often purchase their tickets or book excursion reservations before entering Colorado. If we applied Texas law because it is the state where Mr. Hamric signed the liability release, we would essentially allow the other forty-nine states to regulate a key industry within Colorado.
So Now What?
This was a badly written set of documents. Probably the attempt was made to cover as many legal issues as possible as many was as possible. Writing to documents that both contained release language. However, as written here and in Too many contracts can void each other out; two releases signed at different times can render both release’s void.
Write too many documents with release language in them and you can void all the releases.
The second major disaster is not having a venue and jurisdiction clause. The only real attempt to win the plaintiff had, was the release did not have a venue and jurisdiction clause. Never sign any contract without one, or if signing a contract written by someone else, find out where you have to sue and what law is applied to the contract. It makes a major difference.
Sad, so much time, energy and money were wasted on poorly written contracts (Yes, a release is a contract).
Sadder yet the plaintiff died.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Who am I
Jim Moss
I’m an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the Outdoor Recreation Industry
I represent Manufactures, Outfitters, Guides, Reps, College & University’s, Camps, Youth Programs, Adventure Programs and Businesses
Copyright 2022 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US
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, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,
Hamric v. Wilderness Expeditions, Inc.,
Posted: January 3, 2022 Filed under: Colorado, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Rock Climbing | Tags: Colorado, fatality, Forum selection clause, Hamric, Inc., Jurisdiction and Venue, Medical Form, Rappelling, Registration Form, Release, Rock climbing, Tenth Circuit, Texas, Waiver, Wilderness Expedtions Leave a commentALICIA HAMRIC, individually, as representative of the Estate of Robert Gerald Hamric, and as next friend of Ava Hamric, a minor, Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WILDERNESS EXPEDITIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-1250
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
July 26, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:19-CV-01442-NYW)
William J. Dunleavy, Law Offices of William J. Dunleavy, Allen, Texas (Stephen A. Justino, Boesen Law, Denver, Colorado, on the briefs), for Plaintiff – Appellant.
Malcolm S. Mead (Peter C. Middleton and Jacob R. Woods with him on the brief), Hall & Evans, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant – Appellee.
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
McHUGH, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Gerald Hamric, a Texas resident, joined a church group on an outdoor recreation trip to Colorado. The church group employed the services of Wilderness Expeditions, Inc. (“WEI”) to arrange outdoor activities. Before the outdoor adventure commenced, WEI required each participant, including Mr. Hamric, to complete a “Registration Form” and a “Medical Form.” On the first day, WEI led the church group on a rappelling course. In attempting to complete a section of the course that required participants to rappel down an overhang, Mr. Hamric became inverted. Attempts to rescue Mr. Hamric proved unsuccessful, and he died.
Alicia Hamric, Mr. Hamric’s wife, sued WEI for negligence. WEI moved for summary judgment, asserting the Registration Form and the Medical Form contained a release of its liability for negligence. Ms. Hamric resisted WEI’s motion for summary judgment in four ways. First, Ms. Hamric moved for additional time to conduct discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Second, Ms. Hamric moved for leave to amend her complaint to seek exemplary damages based on willful and wanton conduct. Third, Ms. Hamric filed a motion for leave to disclose an expert out of time. Fourth, Ms. Hamric argued Texas law controlled the validity of the purported liability release in the Registration Form and the Medical Form, and additionally that the release was not conspicuous as required by Texas law.
In a single order, a magistrate judge addressed each of the pending motions. The magistrate judge first declined to grant leave to amend the complaint due to Ms. Hamric’s failure to (1) sustain her burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) because the deadline for amendments had passed; and (2) make out a prima facie case of willful and wanton conduct as required by Colorado law to plead a claim seeking exemplary damages. Next, the magistrate judge concluded WEI was entitled to summary judgment, holding the liability release was valid under both Colorado law and Texas law. Finally, the magistrate judge denied as moot Ms. Hamric’s motions for additional discovery and to disclose an expert out of time.
We affirm the magistrate judge’s rulings. As to Ms. Hamric’s motion for leave to amend, a party seeking to amend a pleading after the deadline in a scheduling order for amendment must satisfy the standard set out by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). But Ms. Hamric concedes she has never sought to satisfy the Rule 16(b) standard. Turning to the discovery motions, where this case hinges on the validity of the liability release and all facts necessary to this primarily legal issue appear in the record, we reject Ms. Hamric’s contentions that further discovery or leave to belatedly disclose an expert were warranted. Finally, while the magistrate judge’s summary judgment analysis was not free of error, we apply de novo review to that ruling. And, under de novo review, we conclude (1) relying on contract law to resolve the choice-of-law issue, as argued for by the parties, Colorado law, rather than Texas law, controls whether the Registration Form and the Medical Form contain a valid liability release; and (2) the forms contain a valid release for negligence by WEI, barring Ms. Hamric’s action.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Rappelling Excursion, Mr. Hamric’s Death, and the Liability Release
Members of the Keller Church of Christ in Keller, Texas, scheduled an outdoor excursion to Colorado, contracting with WEI for adventure planning and guide services. WEI is incorporated in Colorado and has its headquarters in Salida, Colorado. Jamie Garner served as the coordinator for the church group and the point-of-contact between the church members and WEI. The experience WEI provided included guides taking participants rappelling. WEI required all participants, before going on the outdoor excursion, to complete and initial a “Registration Form” and complete and sign a “Medical Form.”[ 1]
The Registration Form has three sections. The first section requires the participant to provide personally identifiable information and contact information. The second section is entitled “Release of Liability & User Indemnity Agreement for Wilderness Expeditions, Inc.” App. Vol. I at 57, 83.[ 2] The text under this bold and underlined header reads, in full: I hereby acknowledge that I, or my child, have voluntarily agreed to participate in the activities outfitted by Wilderness Expeditions, Inc. I understand that the activities and all other hazards and exposures connected with the activities conducted in the outdoors do involve risk and I am cognizant of the risks and dangers inherent with the activities. I (or my child) and (is) fully capable of participating in the activities contracted for and willingly assume the risk of injury as my responsibility whether it is obvious or not. I understand and agree that any bodily injury, death, or loss of personal property and expenses thereof as a result of any, or my child’s, negligence in any scheduled or unscheduled activities associated with Wilderness Expeditions, Inc. are my responsibilities. I understand that accidents or illness can occur in remote places without medical facilities, physicians, or surgeons, and be exposed to temperature extremes or inclement weather. I further agree and understand that any route or activity chosen may not be of minimum risk, but may have been chosen for its interest and challenge. I agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Wilderness Expeditions. Inc., the USDA Forest Service, Colorado Parks and Recreation Department, and any and all state or government agencies whose property the activities may be conducted on, and all of their officers, members, affiliated organizations, agents, or employees for any injury or death caused by or resulting from my or my child’s participation in the activities, scheduled and unscheduled, whether or not such injury or death was caused by my, or their, negligence or from any other cause. By signing my initials below, I certify this is a release of liability.
Id.[ 3] Immediately after this paragraph, the form reads, “Adult participant or parent/guardian initial here:(Initials).” Id. The third and final section of the form is entitled: “Adult Agreement or Parent’s/Guardian Agreement for Wilderness Expeditions, Inc.” Id. The text of this provision states: I understand the nature of the activities may involve the physical demands of hiking over rough terrain, backpacking personal and crew gear, and voluntarily climbing mountains to 14, 433 feet in elevation. Having the assurance of my, or my child’s, good health through a current physical examination by a medical doctor, I hereby give consent for me, or my child, to participate in the activities outfitted by Wilderness Expeditions, Inc. I have included in this form all necessary medical information about myself, or my child, that should be known by the leadership of the program. I assure my, or my child’s, cooperation and assume responsibility for my, or my child’s, actions. I understand that I am responsible for any medical expenses incurred in the event of needed medical attention for myself, or my child. I further agree that I will be financially responsible to repair or replace all items lost or abused by myself or my child. In the event of an emergency, I authorize my consent to any X-ray examination, medica1, dental, or surgical diagnosis, treatment, and/or hospital care advised and supervised by a physician, surgeon, or dentist licensed to practice. I understand that the designated next of kin will be contacted as soon as possible. By signing my initials below, I certify this is a release of liability.
Id. And, as with the second section, the form then provides a line for the participant or the parent or guardian of the participant to initial.
The Medical Form has four sections. The first section seeks information about the participant. The second section is entitled “Medical History.” Initially, this section asks the participant if he suffers from a list of medical conditions, including allergies, asthma, and heart trouble. If the participant does suffer from any medical conditions, the form requests that the participant explain the affirmative answer. Thereafter, the section includes the following language: Note: The staff will not administer any medications, including aspirin, Tums, Tylenol, etc. If you need any over the counter medications, you must provide them. Be sure to tell your staff members what medications you are taking. List any medications that you will have with you: Note about food: Trail food is by necessity a high carbohydrate, high caloric diet. It is high in wheat, milk products, sugar, com syrup, and artificial coloring/flavoring. If these food products cause a problem to your diet, you will be responsible for providing any appropriate substitutions and advise the staff upon arrival. * Doctor’s signature is required to participate. No other form can be substituted. By signing below a physician is verifying the medical history given above and approving this individual to participate.
Id. at 58, 84. The form then includes a section titled “Physician’s Evaluation.” Id. This section seeks certification of the participant’s medical capability to partake in the outdoor activities and asks the physician for contact information. It reads: The applicant will be taking part in strenuous outdoor activities that may include: backpacking, rappelling, hiking at 8-12, 000 feet elevation, and an all day summit climb up to 14, 433 feet elevation. This will include high altitude, extreme weather, cold water, exposure, fatigue, and remote conditions where medical care cannot be assured. The applicant is approved for participation. Physician Signature: ___ Date: ___ Physician Name: ___ Phone Number: ___ Office Address: ___ City: ___ State: ___ Zip: ___
Id. The final section of the form is entitled “Participant or Parent/Guardian Signature – All sections of these forms must be initialed or signed.” Id. The text of the section reads: Individuals who have not completed these forms will not be allowed to participate. I have carefully read all the sections of this agreement, understand its contents, and have initialed all sections of page 1 of this document[.] I have examined all the information given by myself, or my child. By the signature below, I certify that it is true and correct. Should this form and/or any wording be altered, it will not be accepted and the participant will not be allowed to participate.
Id.
WEI made the forms available to Mr. Garner for downloading and completion by the individual church members several months prior to the booked trip. Mr. Hamric initialed both blanks on the Registration Form and signed the Medical Form, dating it April 5, 2017. Andrew Sadousky, FNP-C, completed and signed the “Physician’s Evaluation” section of the Medical Form, certifying that Mr. Hamric was medically capable of participating in the outdoor activities listed on the form, including rappelling. Mr. Hamric’s signed forms were delivered to WEI upon the church group’s arrival in Colorado in July 2017.
After spending a night on WEI property, WEI guides took the church group, including Mr. Hamric, to a rappelling site known as “Quarry High.” Because the rappelling course had a section that WEI guides considered “scary,” the guides did not describe a particular overhang at the Quarry High site during the orientation session or before taking the church group on the rappelling course. Id. at 203.
Several members of the church group successfully descended Quarry High before Mr. Hamric attempted the rappel. As Mr. Hamric worked his way down the overhang portion of the course, he became inverted and was unable to right himself. Efforts to rescue Mr. Hamric proved unsuccessful, and he died of positional asphyxiation.
B. Procedural History
In the District of Colorado, Ms. Hamric commenced a negligence action against WEI, sounding in diversity jurisdiction. As a matter of right, Ms. Hamric amended her complaint shortly thereafter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) (permitting plaintiff to file amended complaint “as a matter of course” within twenty-one days of serving original complaint). The parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), consented to a magistrate judge presiding over the case. WEI answered Ms. Hamric’s First Amended Complaint, in part raising the following affirmative defense: “Decedent Gerald Hamric executed a valid and enforceable liability release. Decedent Gerald Hamric also executed a medical evaluation form which Defendant relied upon. The execution of these document [sic] bars or reduces [Ms. Hamric’s] potential recovery.” Id. at 31-32.
The magistrate judge entered a Scheduling Order adopting several deadlines: (1) August 31, 2019, for amendments to the pleadings; (2) January 31, 2020, for Ms. Hamric to designate her expert witnesses; and (3) April 10, 2020, for the close of all discovery. The Scheduling Order also noted WEI’s defense based on the purported liability release, stating “[t]he parties anticipate that mediation . . . may be useful to settle or resolve the case after meaningful discovery and summary judgment briefing on the issue of the validity and enforceability of the liability release.” Id. at 38 (emphasis added). Finally, the Scheduling Order concluded with language reminding the parties that the deadlines adopted by the order “may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause.” Id. at 42 (italicized emphasis added).
In November 2019, after the deadline for amendments to the pleadings but before the discovery deadlines, WEI moved for summary judgment based on its affirmative defense that both the Registration Form and Medical Form contained a liability release that barred Ms. Hamric’s negligence claim. In support of its motion, WEI contended Colorado law controlled the interpretation and validity of the liability release. Ms. Hamric opposed summary judgment, arguing that because Mr. Hamric completed the forms in Texas, a Colorado court would apply Texas law and that, under Texas law, the liability release was not adequately conspicuous to be valid.
Ms. Hamric also sought to avoid disposition of WEI’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of her action by filing three motions of her own. First, Ms. Hamric moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) for additional time to conduct discovery, contending further discovery would, among other things, reveal details about Mr. Hamric’s completion of the forms and whether Colorado or Texas law should control the interpretation and validity of the purported liability release. Second, in February 2020, Ms. Hamric moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), for leave to file a second amended complaint to seek exemplary damages under § 13-21-102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes based on new allegations of WEI’s willful and wanton conduct.[ 4] Ms. Hamric’s motion to amend, however, did not cite Federal Rule Civil Procedure 16(b) or seek leave to amend the August 31, 2019, Scheduling Order deadline for amendments to the pleadings. Third, in March 2020, Ms. Hamric moved for leave to disclose out of time a “‘Rappelling/Recreational Activities Safety’ expert.” App. Vol. II at 37. Ms. Hamric contended the expert’s opinions about the training, knowledge, and rescue efforts of the WEI guides supported her contention in her proposed second amended complaint that WEI acted in a willful and wanton manner.
The magistrate judge disposed of the four pending motions in a single order. Starting with Ms. Hamric’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, the magistrate judge concluded Ms. Hamric (1) “failed to meet her burden under Rule 16(b) of establishing good cause to generally amend the operative pleading” and (2) had not made out a prima facie case of wanton and willful conduct. Id. at 94. The magistrate judge then turned to WEI’s motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge concluded WEI’s affirmative defense raised an issue sounding in contract law such that principles of contract law controlled the choice-of-law analysis. Applying contract principles, the magistrate judge determined that although Texas law imposed a slightly more rigorous standard for enforcing a liability release, the difference between Texas law and Colorado law was not outcome-determinative and the court could, therefore, apply Colorado law. The magistrate judge read Colorado law as holding that a liability release is valid and enforceable “so long as the intent of the parties was to extinguish liability and this intent was clearly and unambiguously expressed.” Id. at 106 (citing Heil Valley Ranch v. Simkin, 784 P.2d 781, 785 (Colo. 1989)). Applying this standard, the magistrate judge held the liability release used clear and simple terms such that, even though Mr. Hamric was inexperienced at rappelling, the release was valid and foreclosed Ms. Hamric’s negligence claim. Therefore, the magistrate judge granted WEI’s motion for summary judgment. And, having denied Ms. Hamric’s motion for leave to amend and granted WEI’s motion for summary judgment, the magistrate judge denied both of Ms. Hamric’s discovery motions as moot.
Ms. Hamric moved for reconsideration, which the magistrate judge denied. Ms. Hamric timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Ms. Hamric contests the denial of her motion for leave to amend and the grant of summary judgment to WEI. Ms. Hamric also tacitly challenges the magistrate judge’s denial of her discovery motions. We commence our analysis with Ms. Hamric’s motion for leave to amend, holding the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion where the motion was filed after the Scheduling Order’s deadline for amendments to pleadings and Ms. Hamric did not attempt to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)’s standard for amending a deadline in a scheduling order. Next, we discuss Ms. Hamric’s two discovery motions, concluding the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by denying the motions because (1) WEI’s motion for summary judgment presented a largely legal issue on which all facts necessary for resolution already appeared in the record; and (2) consideration of the proposed expert’s opinions potentially capable of supporting allegations of willful and wanton conduct was mooted upon Ms. Hamric failing to satisfy Rule 16(b)’s standard for amending her complaint to allege such conduct. Finally, we analyze WEI’s motion for summary judgment. Although the magistrate judge’s decision was not free of error, the errors are not outcome determinative on appeal given our de novo standard of review. Exercising de novo review, we conclude Colorado law governs the validity of the liability release. And considering the entirety of both the Registration Form and the Medical Form, we conclude the liability release satisfies the factors in Colorado law for enforceability. Therefore, we affirm the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment.
A. Ms. Hamric’s Motion for Leave to Amend
1. Standard of Review
“We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to amend a complaint after the scheduling order’s deadline for amendments has passed.” Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 812 F.3d 1238, 1247 (10th Cir. 2015). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the district court clearly erred or ventured beyond the limits of permissible choice under the circumstances.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). “A district court also abuses its discretion when it issues an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or manifestly unreasonable judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
2. Analysis
“A party seeking leave to amend after a scheduling order deadline must satisfy both the [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 16(b) and Rule 15(a) standards.” Tesone v. Empire Mktg. Strategies, 942 F.3d 979, 989 (10th Cir. 2019). Under the former of those two rules, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). To satisfy this standard a movant must show that “the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite the movant’s diligent efforts.” Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have observed the “good cause” standard for amending deadlines in a scheduling order is “arguably [a] more stringent standard than the standards for amending a pleading under Rule 15.” Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1231 (10th Cir. 2009).
In moving for leave to file a second amended complaint, Ms. Hamric discussed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and how Colorado law did not permit a plaintiff to seek exemplary damages until after commencement of discovery. But Ms. Hamric did not advance an argument for amending the Scheduling Order as required by Rule 16(b). Nor does Ms. Hamric cite Rule 16(b) in her briefs on appeal, much less explain how she satisfied, in her papers before the magistrate judge, the Rule 16(b) standard. In fact, Ms. Hamric conceded at oral argument that, before the magistrate judge, she sought only to amend her complaint and “did not seek to amend the scheduling order.” Oral Argument at 7:42-7:46; see also id. at 7:31-9:10. Ms. Hamric also conceded at oral argument that she had not advanced an argument on appeal regarding satisfying Rule 16(b).
This omission by Ms. Hamric is fatal to her argument. Specifically, when a party seeking to amend her complaint fails, after the deadline for amendment in a scheduling order, to present a good cause argument under Rule 16(b), a lower court does not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. Husky Ventures, Inc. v. B55 Invs. Ltd., 911 F.3d 1000, 1019-20 (10th Cir. 2018). Even if a party who belatedly moves for leave to amend a pleading satisfies Rule 15(a)’s standard, the party must also obtain leave to amend the scheduling order. But Rule 16(b) imposes a higher standard for amending a deadline in a scheduling order than Rule 15(a) imposes for obtaining leave to amend a complaint. Thus, as Husky Ventures suggests, a party’s ability to satisfy the Rule 15(a) standard does not necessitate the conclusion that the party could also satisfy the Rule 16(b) standard. Id. at 1020; see also Bylin, 568 F.3d at 1231 (observing that Rule 16(b) imposes “an arguably more stringent standard than the standards for amending a pleading under Rule 15”). Accordingly, where Ms. Hamric did not attempt to satisfy the Rule 16(b) standard for amending the Scheduling Order, we affirm the district court’s denial of Ms. Hamric’s motion for leave to amend.
B. Ms. Hamric’s Discovery Motions
After WEI moved for summary judgment, Ms. Hamric filed a pair of discovery-related motions-a motion for additional discovery before disposition of WEI’s motion for summary judgment and a motion to disclose an expert out of time. The magistrate judge denied both motions as moot. After stating the applicable standard of review, we consider each motion, affirming the magistrate judge’s rulings.
1. Standard of Review
We review the denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) motion for additional discovery for an abuse of discretion. Ellis v. J.R.’s Country Stores, Inc., 779 F.3d 1184, 1192 (10th Cir. 2015). Likewise, we review the denial of a motion to revisit a scheduling order and allow the disclosure of an expert out of time for an abuse of discretion. Rimbert v. Eli Lilly & Co., 647 F.3d 1247, 1253-54 (10th Cir. 2011). “We will find an abuse of discretion when the district court bases its ruling on an erroneous conclusion of law or relies on clearly erroneous fact findings.” Ellis, 779 F.3d at 1192 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is without factual support in the record or if, after reviewing all of the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
2. Analysis
a. Motion for additional discovery
Before the April 10, 2020, deadline for discovery, WEI filed its motion for summary judgment based on the liability release. Ms. Hamric moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to delay resolution of WEI’s motion for summary judgment, asserting additional discovery would allow her to learn further information about the liability release. The magistrate judge denied the motion as moot, concluding further discovery was not needed to assess the validity of the liability release.
Under Rule 56(d), a party opposing a motion for summary judgment may seek additional time for discovery. To do so, a party must “submit an affidavit (1) identifying the probable facts that are unavailable, (2) stating why these facts cannot be presented without additional time, (3) identifying past steps to obtain evidence of these facts, and (4) stating how additional time would allow for rebuttal of the adversary’s argument for summary judgment.” Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc., 855 F.3d 1091, 1110 (10th Cir. 2017). “[S]ummary judgment [should] be refused where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n.5 (1986). “Requests for further discovery should ordinarily be treated liberally.” Cerveny, 855 F.3d at 1110. “But relief under Rule 56(d) is not automatic.” Id. And Rule 56’s provision allowing a non-moving party to seek additional discovery before disposition on a motion for summary judgment “is not a license for a fishing expedition.” Lewis v. City of Ft. Collins, 903 F.2d 752, 759 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Ellis, 779 F.3d at 1207-08 (affirming denial of Rule 56(d) motion where party “required no further discovery to respond to the . . . summary-judgment motion” and additional discovery sought was speculative).
Through the affidavit supporting her Rule 56(d) motion, Ms. Hamric sought four areas of additional discovery. First, she sought discovery on “the drafting of the purported liability release forms” and the meaning of language on the forms. App. Vol. I at 94. Regardless of whether Colorado or Texas law applies, the four corners of the Registration Form and Medical Form, not WEI’s thought process when drafting the forms, controls the validity of the liability release. See B & B Livery, Inc. v. Riehl, 960 P.2d 134, 138 (Colo. 1998) (requiring that intent of parties to extinguish liability be “clearly and unambiguously expressed” (quoting Heil Valley Ranch, 784 P.2d at 785)); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 508 (Tex. 1993) (“[A] party seeking indemnity from the consequences of that party’s own negligence must express that intent in specific terms within the four corners of the contract.”). Therefore, the drafting process employed by WEI and its understanding of the language of the forms is not relevant to whether the forms included sufficiently specific language to foreclose a claim for negligence.
Second, Ms. Hamric sought to discover information about WEI’s process for distributing the forms and how the church group members, including Mr. Hamric, completed and submitted the forms. Ms. Hamric also requested time to discover matters related to the choice-of-law issue, including the “place of contracting,” “the place of performance,” and “the domicile, residence nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.” App. Vol. I at 95. Information on these matters, however, was known to Ms. Hamric prior to the magistrate judge’s summary judgment ruling. For instance, the record shows Mr. Hamric received and completed the forms in Texas a few months before the WEI-led excursion and that the church group provided WEI the completed forms upon its arrival at WEI’s location in Colorado. Accordingly, there was no need to delay summary judgment proceedings to discover matters already known to the parties. See Ellis, 779 F.3d at 1207-08.
Third, Ms. Hamric, as part of a challenge to the authenticity of the forms, initially sought to discover information regarding anomalies and alterations on the forms attached to WEI’s motion for summary judgment, as well as evidence of fraud by WEI. Subsequent to Ms. Hamric filing her motion for additional discovery, WEI provided her the original forms signed by Mr. Hamric, and she withdrew her challenge to the authenticity of the forms. Accordingly, by the time the district court ruled on WEI’s motion for summary judgment and Ms. Hamric’s motion for additional discovery, the requests for discovery regarding the authenticity of the forms was moot.
Fourth, Ms. Hamric sought time to discover “evidence of willful and wanton conduct by Defendant WEI and/or by its agents, servants and/or employees.” Id. Discovery on this matter, however, became moot with the magistrate judge’s denial of Ms. Hamric’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to seek exemplary damages and add allegations of willful and wanton conduct, a ruling we affirm. See supra at 12-14, Section II(A).
Having considered each additional discovery request advanced by Ms. Hamric, we conclude the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by ruling on WEI’s motion for summary judgment without permitting Ms. Hamric additional time for discovery. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s denial of Ms. Hamric’s Rule 56(d) motion.
b. Motion for leave to disclose expert out of time
Ms. Hamric moved for leave to disclose a “‘Rappelling/Recreational Activities Safety’ expert” out of time. App. Vol. II at 37. Attached to the motion was a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) expert disclosure, offering opinions about the alleged negligent and/or willful and wanton conduct of WEI and its employees. The magistrate judge denied this motion as moot. Considering the magistrate judge’s other rulings and our holdings on appeal, we conclude the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion. Any opinion offered by the expert as to willful and wanton conduct lost relevance with the denial of Ms. Hamric’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to add allegations of willful and wanton conduct and to seek exemplary damages-a ruling we affirmed supra at 12-14, Section II(A). And the expert’s opinion about WEI acting in a negligent manner lost relevance upon the magistrate judge concluding the liability release was valid and barred Ms. Hamric from proceeding on her negligence claim-a ruling we affirm infra at 19-37, Section II(C). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s denial of Ms. Hamric’s motion for leave to disclose an expert out of time.
C. WEI’s Motion for Summary Judgment
After stating our standard of review, we discuss Ms. Hamric’s contentions that the magistrate judge (1) applied the wrong standard when considering WEI’s affirmative defense based on the liability release and (2) resolved issues of disputed fact in favor of WEI. Although we conclude the magistrate judge’s ruling is not free of error, the errors do not bind us because we need not repeat them when conducting our de novo review of the grant of summary judgment. Thus, we proceed to consider the validity of the liability release. In conducting our analysis, we hold that, where the parties contend contract principles provide the framework for our choice-of-law analysis, Colorado law governs the validity of the release.[ 5] And we conclude that, under Colorado law, the liability release is valid and enforceable so as to foreclose Ms. Hamric’s negligence claim. Therefore, we affirm the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment.
1. Standard of Review
We review the district court’s rulings on summary judgment de novo. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Winton, 818 F.3d 1103, 1105 (10th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. “In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we need not defer to factual findings rendered by the district court.” Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co., 900 F.3d 1166, 1180 (10th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). For purposes of summary judgment, “[t]he nonmoving party is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the record.” Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Sys., Inc., 726 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2013). Finally, “we can affirm on any ground supported by the record, so long as the appellant has had a fair opportunity to address that ground.” Alpine Bank v. Hubbell, 555 F.3d 1097, 1108 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2. Alleged Errors by the Magistrate Judge
Ms. Hamric argues the magistrate judge (1) applied the incorrect standard when considering WEI’s affirmative defense and (2) resolved disputed issues of material fact in favor of WEI. We consider each contention in turn.
a. Standard applicable to affirmative defenses
Ms. Hamric contends the magistrate judge announced an incorrect standard of review and impermissibly shifted evidentiary burdens onto her, as the non-moving party. The disputed language in the magistrate judge’s opinion states: When, as here, a defendant moves for summary judgment to test an affirmative defense, it is the defendant’s burden to demonstrate the absence of any disputed fact as to the affirmative defense asserted. See Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011). Once the defendant meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate the essential elements of her claim(s), see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999), and to “demonstrate with specificity the existence of a disputed fact” as to the defendant’s affirmative defense, see Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562, 564 (10th Cir. 1997).
App. Vol. II at 100 (emphasis added). Ms. Hamric takes issue with the emphasized phrase.
Nothing on the pages the magistrate judge cited from Anderson and Simms requires a plaintiff responding to a motion for summary judgment based on an affirmative defense to identify evidence supporting each element of her claim. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (requiring nonmoving party in face of “properly supported motion for summary judgment” to “‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial'” (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288 (1968))); Simms, 165 F.3d at 1326, 1328 (discussing summary judgment standard in context of employment discrimination claim and burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)). In fact, the standard announced by the magistrate judge would unnecessarily require a plaintiff, in response to a motion for summary judgment based on an affirmative defense, to identify evidence supporting elements of her claim never drawn into question by the defendant. Placing such a burden on a plaintiff is all the more problematic where, as here, the parties contemplated a bifurcated summary judgment process initially focused on the validity of the liability release, and WEI filed its motion for summary judgment before the close of discovery.
We have previously stated that a district court errs by requiring a party opposing summary judgment based on an affirmative defense to “establish at least an inference of the existence of each element essential to the case.” Johnson v. Riddle, 443 F.3d 723, 724 n.1 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). We reaffirm that conclusion today. To defeat a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff, upon the defendant raising and supporting an affirmative defense, need only identify a disputed material fact relative to the affirmative defense. Id.; Hutchinson, 105 F.3d at 564; see also Leone v. Owsley, 810 F.3d 1149, 1153-54 (10th Cir. 2015) (discussing defendant’s burden for obtaining summary judgment based on an affirmative defense). Only if the defendant also challenges an element of the plaintiff’s claim does the plaintiff bear the burden of coming forward with some evidence in support of that element. See Tesone, 942 F.3d at 994 (“The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing an absence of any issues of material fact. Where . . . the burden of persuasion at trial would be on the nonmoving party, the movant may carry its initial burden by providing ‘affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim’ or by ‘demonstrating to the Court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.’ If the movant makes this showing, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” (first quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 330, then quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250)); Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670-71 (10th Cir. 1998) (if summary judgment movant carries its initial burden of showing a lack of evidence in support of an essential element of plaintiff’s claim, “the burden shifts to the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts” supporting the essential element (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The magistrate judge’s erroneous statement regarding Ms. Hamric’s burden, however, does not foreclose our ability to further review the grant of summary judgment. Rather, in accord with the applicable de novo standard of review, we review WEI’s motion for summary judgment under the standard that “should have been applied by the [magistrate judge].”[ 6] Nance v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 294 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted).
b. Resolution of disputed issues of material fact
Ms. Hamric contends the magistrate judge impermissibly resolved two issues of disputed fact in WEI’s favor. We discuss each asserted factual issue in turn, concluding factual disputes existed and the magistrate judge incorrectly resolved one of the disputes against Ms. Hamric. However, even if this factual dispute were material, we may proceed to analyze the validity of the liability release after resolving the dispute in Ms. Hamric’s favor. See Lincoln, 900 F.3d at 1180 (“In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we need not defer to factual findings rendered by the district court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
i. Language of Registration Form and Medical Form
In moving for summary judgment, WEI’s brief contained edited versions of the Registration Form and Medical Form that focused the reader’s attention on the language most pertinent to Mr. Hamric’s participation in the outdoor excursion and the release of liability. For instance, the version of the forms in WEI’s brief left out phrases such as “(or my child)” and the accompanying properly-tensed-and-conjugated verb that would apply if the forms were completed by a parent or guardian of the participant, rather than by the participant himself. Compare App. Vol. I at 46, with id. at 57, 83.
Although WEI and Ms. Hamric attached full versions of the forms to their papers on the motion for summary judgment, the magistrate judge’s quotation of the language in the forms mirrored that which appeared in WEI’s brief. Ms. Hamric contends the magistrate judge, in not quoting the full forms, resolved a dispute of fact regarding the language of the forms in WEI’s favor. It is not uncommon for a court to focus on the pertinent language of a contract or liability release when putting forth its analysis. In this case, Ms. Hamric claims the forms should be reviewed on the whole. Although there is no indication the magistrate judge did not review the forms in their entirety, despite her use of incomplete quotations, we attach full versions of the Registration Form and Medical Form completed by Mr. Hamric as an appendix to this opinion. And we consider all the language on the forms when assessing whether the forms contain a valid liability release.
ii. Registration Form and Medical Form as single form
The magistrate judge viewed the Registration Form and the Medical Form as a single, “two-page agreement.” App. Vol. II at 103; see also id. at 101 (“Adult customers are required to execute a two-page agreement with WEI before they are permitted to participate in WEI-sponsored activities. The first page of the agreement is a ‘Registration Form’, followed by a ‘Medical Form’ on page two.”). Ms. Hamric contends the two forms are separate agreements, not a single agreement. While a jury could have concluded that the Registration Form and Medical Form were separate agreements, this dispute of fact is not material given applicable law regarding the construction of agreements that are related and simultaneously executed.
It is clear from the record that a participant needed to complete both forms before partaking in the WEI-lead excursion. Further, while the Medical Form required a signature and a date, the Registration Form required only that a participant place his initials on certain lines, suggesting the forms were part of a single agreement. However, the forms do not contain page numbers to indicate they are part of a single agreement. Further, language on the Medical Form is conflicting and ambiguous as to whether the two forms comprise a single agreement: Individuals who have not completed these forms will not be allowed to participate. I have carefully read all the sections of this agreement, understand its contents, and have initialed all sections of page 1 of this document. I have examined all the information given by myself, or my child. By the signature below, I certify that it is true and correct. Should this form and/or any wording be altered, it will not be accepted and the participant will not be allowed to participate.
App., Vol. I at 58, 84 (emphases added). Both the italicized language and the use of “forms” in the plural to describe the agreement support the conclusion that the Registration Form and the Medical Form are a single agreement. But the underlined language, using “form” in the singular, suggests the forms might constitute separate agreements. Otherwise the singular use of “form” would suggest the unlikely result that a participant could not alter the wording of the Medical Form but could alter the wording of the Registration Form.[ 7] Accord Navajo Nation v. Dalley, 896 F.3d 1196, 1213 (10th Cir. 2018) (describing the cannon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius as providing “that the ‘expression of one item of an associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned'” and that “the enumeration of certain things in a statute suggests that the legislature had no intent of including things not listed or embraced.” (quoting NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 137 S.Ct. 929, 940 (2017))). Thus, a reasonable jury could have found the Registration Form and the Medical Form were separate agreements.
We conclude, however, that this dispute of fact is not material to resolution of the primarily legal question regarding whether Mr. Hamric entered into a valid liability release with WEI. Under Colorado law, it is well established that a court may, and often must, construe two related agreements pertaining to the same subject matter as a single agreement. See Bledsoe v. Hill, 747 P.2d 10, 12 (Colo.App. 1987) (“If a simultaneously executed agreement between the same parties, relating to the same subject matter, is contained in more than one instrument, the documents must be construed together to determine intent as though the entire agreement were contained in a single document. Although it is desirable for the documents to refer to each other, there is no requirement that they do so.” (citing In re Application for Water Rights v. N. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 677 P.2d 320 (Colo. 1984); Harty v. Hoerner, 463 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1969); Westminster v. Skyline Vista Dev. Co., 431 P.2d 26 (Colo. 1967))).[ 8] Thus, although a jury could conclude the Registration Form and Medical Form technically constitute separate agreements, we consider the agreements together when determining if Mr. Hamric released WEI for its negligent acts.
3. Choice-of-Law Analysis
At the heart of WEI’s motion for summary judgment was whether Colorado or Texas law controls and whether the release is valid under the appropriate law. On appeal, Ms. Hamric contends “contract principles” control the choice-of-law analysis because WEI’s affirmative defense “was a contract issue on a purported agreement to release liability.” Opening Br. at 26-27. Ms. Hamric further contends that under contract principles in the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, Texas law applies because Mr. Hamric was a Texas resident who completed the Registration Form and the Medical Form while in Texas. WEI agrees that if contract principles govern the choice-of-law issue, the Restatement (Second) on Conflict of Laws provides the appropriate factors for this court to consider. But WEI contends (1) the liability release is valid under both Colorado and Texas law and (2) the relevant factors in §§ 6 and 188 of the Restatement favor application of Colorado law if this court is inclined to resolve the conflict-of-law issue.
Outdoor recreation and tourism is a growing industry in Colorado, as well as several other states within our circuit. And many outdoor tourism outfitters, like WEI, require participants to complete forms containing liability releases. See Redden v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., ___ P.3d ___, 2020 WL 7776149, at *2 (Colo.App. Dec. 31, 2020); Hamill v. Cheley Colo. Camps, Inc., 262 P.3d 945, 947-48 (Colo.App. 2011); see also Dimick v. Hopkinson, 422 P.3d 512, 515-16 (Wyo. 2018); Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd., 301 P.3d 984, 986 (Utah 2013); Beckwith v. Weber, 277 P.3d 713, 716-17 (Wyo. 2012). With the prevalence and recurrence of questions regarding the validity of liability releases in mind, and viewing the choice-of-law issue as sounding in contract law as urged by the parties, we consider whether the law of the state where the outdoor recreation company is based and the outdoor excursion occurs controls or whether the law of the state of residence of the participant controls.
a. Framework for choice-of-law analysis
“In a diversity action we apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the forum state.” Kipling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 774 F.3d 1306, 1310 (10th Cir. 2014). “This is true even when choice of law determinations involve the interpretation of contract provisions.” Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. M & L Invs., 10 F.3d 1510, 1514 (10th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this court must look to Colorado choice-of-law rules to determine if Colorado or Texas law applies.
“Colorado follows the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971) . . . for both contract and tort actions,” Kipling, 774 F.3d at 1310 (citing Wood Brothers Homes, Inc. v. Walker Adjustment Bureau, 601 P.2d 1369, 1372 (Colo. 1979); First Nat’l Bank v. Rostek, 514 P.2d 314, 319-20 (Colo. 1973)). Absent a forum-state “statutory directive,” the Restatement advises a court to consider seven factors: (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws: Choice-of-Law Principles § 6 (Am. L. Inst. 1971). The commentary to § 6 identifies the first factor as “[p]robably the most important function of choice-of-law rules” because choice-of-law rules are designed “to further harmonious relations between states and to facilitate commercial intercourse between them.” Id. § 6 cmt. d. Meanwhile, the second factor takes into account any special interests, beyond serving as the forum for the action, that the forum state has in the litigation. Id. § 6 cmt. e. As to the fourth factor-“the protection of justified expectations, “- the comments to § 6 note: This is an important value in all fields of the law, including choice of law. Generally speaking, it would be unfair and improper to hold a person liable under the local law of one state when he had justifiably molded his conduct to conform to the requirements of another state.
Id. § 6 cmt. g.
A more specific section of the Restatement addressing contracts lacking a choice-of-law provision provides additional guidance: (1) The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in § 6. (2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties . . ., the contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include: (a) the place of contracting, (b) the place of negotiation of the contract, (c) the place of performance, (d) the location of the subject matter of the contract, and (e) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws: Law Governing in Absence of Effective Choice by the Parties § 188.
b. Colorado law controls
We conclude that, under the Restatement, a Colorado court would apply Colorado law to determine the validity and enforceability of the liability release relied upon by WEI. First looking at § 6 of the Restatement, the liability release was drafted by a Colorado corporation to cover services provided exclusively in Colorado. Applying out-of-state law to interpret the liability release would hinder commerce, as it would require WEI and other outdoor-recreation companies to know the law of the state in which a given participant lives. Such a rule would place a significant burden on outdoor-recreation companies who depend on out-of-state tourists for revenue because it would require a company like WEI to match the various requirements of the other forty-nine states. This approach would not give WEI the benefit of having logically molded its liability release to comply with Colorado law, the law of the state where WEI does business. Furthermore, Ms. Hamric’s primary argument for applying Texas law is that Mr. Hamric signed the forms in Texas. But a rule applying out-of-state law on that basis is likely to deter WEI from furnishing the liability release until a participant enters Colorado. And, while not providing participants the forms until arrival in Colorado might lessen WEI’s liability exposure under out-of-state law, such a practice would not benefit participants because it would pressure participants into a last-minute decision regarding whether to sign the liability release after having already traveled to Colorado for the outdoor excursion.
Colorado also has a strong interest in this matter. Colorado has a booming outdoor-recreation industry, in the form of skiing, hiking, climbing, camping, horseback riding, and rafting excursions. Colorado relies on tax receipts from the outdoor-recreation industry. And while many out-of-state individuals partake in these activities within Colorado, they often purchase their tickets or book excursion reservations before entering Colorado. If we applied Texas law because it is the state where Mr. Hamric signed the liability release, we would essentially allow the other forty-nine states to regulate a key industry within Colorado. Such an approach is impractical and illogical.
Further, the considerations and contacts listed in § 188 of the Restatement favor application of Colorado law. As to the first contact, in accord with the commentary, a contract is formed in “the place where occurred the last act necessary to give the contract binding effect.” Id. § 188 cmt. e. Here, that act occurred when the church group provided the forms to WEI in Colorado; for, before the forms were provided to WEI, Mr. Hamric had not conveyed his acceptance to WEI and WEI did not know whether Mr. Hamric would complete the forms and agree to the liability release. See Scoular Co. v. Denney, 151 P.3d 615, 619 (Colo.App. 2006) (discussing means of accepting an offer and stating “general rule that communication is required of the acceptance of the offer for a bilateral contract”). The second contact consideration is not applicable because the terms of the Medical Form precluded alteration, and there is no suggestion in the record Mr. Hamric attempted to negotiate the terms of the liability release before signing the forms. The third and fourth factors heavily favor application of Colorado law because WEI provides outdoor excursion services in Colorado, not Texas, and Mr. Hamric knew such when he signed the forms. Finally, the fifth factor is neutral because Mr. Hamric was a resident of Texas and WEI has its place of business in Colorado. With three factors favoring Colorado law, one factor inapplicable, and one factor neutral, the overall weight of the § 188 factors favors application of Colorado law.
Concluding that both § 6 and § 188 of the Restatement strongly support application of Colorado law, we hold that a Colorado court would choose to apply Colorado law, not Texas law, when determining whether the Registration Form and Medical Form contain a valid liability release. We, therefore, proceed to that analysis.
4. The Liability Release Is Valid under Colorado Law
Under Colorado law, “[a]greements attempting to exculpate a party from that party’s own negligence have long been disfavored.” Heil Valley Ranch, 784 P.2d at 783.But, such “[e]xculpatory agreements are not necessarily void,” as courts recognize that “[t]hey stand at the crossroads of two competing principles: freedom of contract and responsibility for damages caused by one’s own negligent acts.” Id. at 784.In assessing the validity of a release, “a court must consider: (1) the existence of a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service performed; (3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language.” Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981); see also Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 100 P.3d 465, 467 (Colo. 2004) (a release agreement “must be closely scrutinized to ensure that the intent of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language and that the circumstances and the nature of the service involved indicate that the contract was fairly entered into”).
Ms. Hamric challenges only WEI’s ability to show “whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language.”[ 9] “To determine whether the intent of the parties is clearly and unambiguously expressed, [the Colorado Supreme Court has] examined the actual language of the agreement for legal jargon, length and complication, and any likelihood of confusion or failure of a party to recognize the full extent of the release provisions.” Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467. In general accord with this statement, federal district courts in Colorado have discerned five factors from Colorado Supreme Court decisions to determine if a release is unambiguous: (1) “whether the agreement is written in simple and clear terms that are free from legal jargon”; (2) “whether the agreement is inordinately long or complicated”; (3) “whether the release specifically addresses the risk that caused the plaintiff’s injury”; (4) “whether the contract contains any emphasis to highlight the importance of the information it contains”; and (5) “whether the plaintiff was experienced in the activity making risk of that particular injury reasonably foreseeable.” Salazar v. On the Trail Rentals, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-cv-00320-CMA-KMT, 2012 WL 934240, at *4 (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2012) (deriving factors from Heil Valley Ranch, 784 P.2d at 785; Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467); see also Eburn v. Capitol Peak Outfitters, Inc., 882 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1253 (D. Colo. 2012) (citing factors set forth in Salazar). Each and every factor, however, need not be satisfied for a court to uphold the validity of a liability release, as the Colorado Supreme Court has upheld the validity of a release where the signor was a novice at the outdoor activity in question. See B & B Livery, Inc., 960 P.2d at 138 (upholding liability release without finding every factor favored validity); id. at 139-40 (Hobbs, J., dissenting) (discussing signor’s inexperience riding horses).
The first four factors taken from Heil Valley Ranch and Chadwick support the validity of the liability release in the Registration Form and Medical Form. The forms span a mere two pages, with language pertinent to the liability release in only four sections of the forms. And those four sections are generally free of legal jargon. For instance, in detailing the scope of the release, the Registration Form required the participant/signor to “hold harmless Wilderness Expeditions, Inc. . . . for any injury or death caused by or resulting from my or my child’s participation in the activities.”[ 10] App. Vol. I at 57, 83. And this language comes after the form describes several of the risks associated with the activities, including “that accidents or illness can occur in remote places without medical facilities” and that “any route or activity chosen [by WEI] may not be of minimum risk, but may have been chosen for its interest and challenge.” Id. The Registration Form also twice places bolded emphasis on the fact that a participant was releasing WEI from liability: “By signing my initials below, I certify this is a release of liability.”Id. Finally, although not explicitly a factor identified by Colorado courts, we observe WEI provided the church group with the forms, and Mr. Hamric completed the forms, months before the booked excursion. Thus, if Mr. Hamric personally had difficulty understanding any of the language on the forms, he had ample time to contact WEI for an explanation or consult legal counsel.
The sole factor clearly cutting against enforcement of the liability release is Mr. Hamric’s lack of rappelling experience. However, as noted above, the Colorado Supreme Court has not found this consideration to be dispositive against the enforcement of a liability waiver. See B & B Livery, Inc., 960 P.2d at 138-39. And, where the liability release between Mr. Hamric and WEI is otherwise clear, specific, and uncomplicated, Mr. Hamric’s lack of experience rappelling is insufficient to defeat the release as a whole.
Accordingly, applying Colorado law, we hold the liability release is valid and its enforcement bars Ms. Hamric’s negligence claim. Therefore, we affirm the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor of WEI.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the denial of Ms. Hamric’s motion for leave to amend her complaint because the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion where Ms. Hamric did not attempt to satisfy the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) standard for amending the Scheduling Order. We also affirm the denial of Ms. Hamric’s discovery motions, holding the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion where the items Ms. Hamric sought to discover were either already in the record, were not necessary to determine the validity of the liability release, or went to Ms. Hamric’s effort to obtain exemplary damages, which she could not pursue given the denial of her motion for leave to amend her complaint. Finally, applying de novo review to the choice-of-law issue and the issue regarding the validity of the liability release, we conclude Colorado law applies and the release is valid and enforceable under that law. Therefore, we affirm the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment to WEI.
———
Notes:
[ 1]Here, we summarize the Registration Form and the Medical Form. Copies of the full forms, taken from the Appendix submitted by Ms. Hamric, are attached to this opinion. We rely on the full forms, and all of the language thereon, when conducting our analysis. Further, as discussed infra at 25-27, Section II(C)(2)(b)(ii), while the Registration Form and Medical Form could be viewed as separate forms, Colorado law requires us to consider both forms together when conducting our analysis.
[ 2]Throughout our opinion, we cite simultaneously to the Registration Form or Medical Form attached to WEI’s motion for summary judgment, App. Vol. I at 57- 58, and the Registration Form or Medical Form attached to Ms. Hamric’s response to WEI’s motion for summary judgment, id. at 83-84. Although the language of the two sets of forms are identical, the clarity of the text varies somewhat, seemingly based on the proficiency of the respective copy machines used by the parties.
[ 3]In quoting the forms, we seek to replicate the font size, spacing, and bolding of the text of the Registration Form and Medical Form completed by Mr. Hamric.
[ 4] Under Colorado law: A claim for exemplary damages in an action governed by [§ 13-21-102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes] may not be included in any initial claim for relief. A claim for exemplary damages in an action governed by this section may be allowed by amendment to the pleadings only after the exchange of initial disclosures . . . and the plaintiff establishes prima facie proof of a triable issue.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(1.5)(a).
[ 5]Although Ms. Hamric’s action sounds in tort law, on appeal, the parties do not contend that tort principles provide the framework for the choice-of-law analysis regarding the liability release. Thus, we reach no conclusion as to whether Colorado law or Texas law would govern if tort principles played a role in the choice-of-law analysis.
[ 6]While the magistrate judge incorrectly stated the standard governing WEI’s motion for summary judgment, it is not apparent the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusion that WEI was entitled to summary judgment hinged on Ms. Hamric’s failure to identify evidence supporting each element of her negligence claim. Rather, the magistrate judge correctly granted WEI summary judgment based on the liability release and WEI’s affirmative defense.
[ 7]WEI has advanced inconsistent positions on whether the Registration Form and Medical Form comprised a single agreement. Although on appeal WEI argues the forms constitute a single agreement releasing liability, WEI’s Answer to Ms. Hamric’s Complaint treats the two forms as separate agreements, stating that “[d]ecedent Gerald Hamric executed a valid and enforceable liability release. Decedent Gerald Hamric also executed a medical evaluation.” App. Vol. I at 32 (emphasis added).
[ 8]Although we conclude that Colorado law, not Texas law, controls the validity of the liability release, infra at 28-33, Section II(C)(3), Texas law likewise permits a court to read separate but related documents together when determining the intent of the parties, see Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex. 2000) (“The City’s argument ignores well-established law that instruments pertaining to the same transaction may be read together to ascertain the parties’ intent, even if the parties executed the instruments at different times and the instruments do not expressly refer to each other, and that a court may determine, as a matter of law, that multiple documents comprise a written contract. In appropriate instances, courts may construe all the documents as if they were part of a single, unified instrument.” (footnotes omitted)).
[ 9]Ms. Hamric also argues that the question of whether Mr. Hamric and WEI entered into a liability release was a question of fact for a jury. But Ms. Hamric withdrew her fact-based challenge to the authenticity of the forms. Further, under Colorado law, “[t]he determination of the sufficiency and validity of an exculpatory agreement is a question of law for the court to determine.” Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981). And, where a liability release has force only if it is “clear and unambiguous,” id., the question of the existence of a liability release and its validity are one in the same because if the language relied on by a defendant does not form a valid release, then no liability release exists.
[ 10] The omitted language marked by the ellipses also required a signor/participant to hold federal and state agencies harmless for injuries or death that might occur as a result of WEI-led activities on federal or state land. Like the rest of the release, this language is plain and clear such that any reasonably educated individual would understand the nature of the release as to these third parties.
Cyclists looking for more insurance sought to prove he was employed at the time, court rules he was not. Therefore, he will defend a negligent homicide claim on his own.
Posted: December 18, 2017 Filed under: Cycling, Insurance, New York | Tags: Bicycling, Central Park, Crosswalk, Cycling, Employee, Employer, Excising Control, Exercise of Control, fatality, Negligent Hiring, Negligent Retention, Propensity, Riding Dangerously, Scope of Employment, Supervision and Control, vicarious liability, Vicariously Liable Leave a commentBy bringing a party to a lawsuit with more insurance or money, many times the defendant can escape with fewer damages. This can happen by the defendant’s actions or sometimes when the plaintiff and the defendant work together to create liability for a third party.
Fein, etc., v. Cook, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607; 2017 NY Slip Op 06603
State: New York
Plaintiff: Randall Fein, etc.,
Defendant: Neil L. Cook, Defendant, Asphalt Green, Inc., Defendant-Respondent
Plaintiff Claims: Negligence
Defendant Defenses: Was working for his employer at the time of the accident
Holding: Not working for his employer and not covered by his employer’s Insurance
Year: 2017
Summary
The plaintiff and/or defendant attempted to bring the defendant’s employer into the lawsuit as a way to bring more money to the settlement table. The defendant while riding a bicycle killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk in Central Park, New York.
The attempt failed because there was no indication the defendant was under the supervision and control of the employer at the time of the accident.
Facts
The defendant was riding his bicycle when he struck and killed a pedestrian in the crosswalk.
Decedent died from injuries sustained when, while in the middle of a crosswalk in Central Park, he was struck by a bike ridden by defendant Neil Cook, a bicyclist and coach employed by AGI, which operates, among other things, a fitness facility on the Upper East Side.
Defendant cyclists attempted to bring into the case his employer where he worked as a bicycle coach. His employer, Asphalt Green, Inc. (AGI), would have more insurance, more resources to pay off the plaintiff and possibly allow the defendant to escape damages he could never pay.
This decision was based on a motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendant/Respondent alleged employer AGI.
It cannot be determined from the decision if the employer AGI was brought in by the plaintiff or the defendant. Nor was it developed that the plaintiff and defendant had agreed to some type of reduction in damages against the defendant if the employee was found to be working for the defendant at the time, making the employer also liable.
Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.
Under New York law, to be working at the time the employer had to be exercising some control over the employee/defendant at the time of the accident. The court did not find any facts to support that allegation and found “there is no indication that AGI was exercising any control over Cook at the time of the accident.”
Nor was the employer separately liable for a claim of negligent hiring and retention of the defendant. To be liable under that theory the employee had to be working for the employer at the time of the accident and the employer had to have known of the employee’s propensity to ride dangerously in Central Park, where the accident happened.
There is no evidence that AGI knew or should have known of Cook’s alleged propensity to dangerously ride his bicycle in Central Park, an element necessary to support the claim for negligent hiring and retention.
The alleged employer was dismissed from the case.
So Now What?
This was a simple way to bring a lot more money to the table for the plaintiff. It might have been done so with the defendant’s help and/or consent. By agreeing to this the defendant might have been able to negotiate with the plaintiff a reduction in the damages he might owe or be completely dismissed from the case upon settlement with the alleged employer.
Although a scary set of facts, you actually see agreements like this often in litigation as the plaintiff’s attempt to get more money than the defendant might have or ever have and the defendant willing to throw his employer under the buss to save his own jersey.
Probably, the defendant already was terminated from his job. You would not want to employ a cycling coach who had killed someone while riding a bike.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) 334 8529
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Email: Rec-law@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, #RecreationLaw,
#OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw, Cycling, Bicycling, Crosswalk,
Central Park, Fatality, Employee, Employer, Supervision and Control, Vicarious
Liability, Vicariously Liable, Scope of Employment, Propensity, Riding
Dangerously, Exercise of Control, Excising Control, Negligent Hiring, Negligent
Retention,
Fein, etc., v. Cook, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607; 2017 NY Slip Op 06603
Posted: November 26, 2017 Filed under: Cycling, Legal Case, New York | Tags: Bicycling, Central Park, Crosswalk, Cycling, Employee, Employer, Excising Control, Exercise of Control, fatality, Negligent Hiring, Negligent Retention, Propensity, Riding Dangerously, Scope of Employment, Supervision and Control, vicarious liability, Vicariously Liable Leave a commentFein, etc., v. Cook, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607; 2017 NY Slip Op 06603
Randall Fein, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v Neil L. Cook, Defendant, Asphalt Green, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.
4478, 110902/10
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607; 2017 NY Slip Op 06603
September 26, 2017, Decided
September 26, 2017, Entered
NOTICE:
THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION. THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
COUNSEL: [*1] Clyde & Co., New York (Jeffrey J. Ellis of counsel), for appellant.
Rutherford & Christie, LLP, New York (Michael C. Becker of counsel), for respondent.
JUDGES: Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kern, Moulton, JJ.
OPINION
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered August 22, 2016, which granted defendant Asphalt Green, Inc.’s (AGI) motion for summary judgment, to the extent of dismissing the amended complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Decedent died from injuries sustained when, while in the middle of a crosswalk in Central Park, he was struck by a bike ridden by defendant Neil Cook, a bicyclist and coach employed by AGI, which operates, among other things, a fitness facility on the Upper East Side.
The motion court correctly determined that AGI could not be held vicariously liable for Cook’s alleged negligence, as Cook was acting outside the scope of his employment. At the time of the accident, Cook was engaged in a weekend bicycle ride, in a public park, using a bicycle that he purchased and equipped, was alone and was not coaching anyone, and was not acting in furtherance of any duties owed to AGI (see Riviello v Waldron, 47 NY2d 297, 391 N.E.2d 1278, 418 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1979]; Weimer v Food Merchants, 284 AD2d 190, 726 N.Y.S.2d 423 [1st Dept 2001]).
Cook’s unsupported belief, as set forth in an [*2] affirmative defense, that his bicycle riding had a work component to it, and his unsworn Response to the Notice to Admit (see CPLR 3123[a]), which improperly sought admissions as to employment status, a contested issue central to the action (see Berg v Flower Fifth Ave. Hosp., 102 AD2d 760, 476 N.Y.S.2d 895 [1st Dept 1984]), do not create triable issues of fact as to whether Cook was acting in the scope of employment. Unlike in Aycardi v Robinson (128 AD3d 541, 9 N.Y.S.3d 262 [1st Dept 2015]), relied upon by plaintiff, there is no indication that AGI was exercising any control over Cook at the time of the accident (see Lundberg v State of New York, 25 NY2d 467, 255 N.E.2d 177, 306 N.Y.S.2d 947 [1969]).
The motion court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s direct negligence claim against AGI. There is no evidence that AGI knew or should have known of Cook’s alleged propensity to dangerously ride his bicycle in Central Park, an element necessary to support the claim for negligent hiring and retention (see White v Hampton Mgt. Co. L.L.C., 35 AD3d 243, 244, 827 N.Y.S.2d 120 [1st Dept 2006]), and plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of deficient training are insufficient to defeat summary judgment (see Richardson v New York Univ., 202 AD2d 295, 296-297, 609 N.Y.S.2d 180 [1st Dept 1994]).
We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
2016-2017 In bound ski/board fatalities – Last one this year, Last one forever
Posted: May 10, 2017 Filed under: Avalanche, Ski Area, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: fatality, ski area, skiing, snowboarding Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of May 5, 2017. Thanks.
Skiing and Snowboarding are still safer than being in your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from skiing but to help you understand the risks.
Red type is natural or medical conditions that occurred inbounds on the slopes
Green Type is Fatalities while sledding at the Resort
Blue Type is a Lift Accidents
Purple Type is Employee or Ski Patroller
# | Date | State | Resort | Where | Trail Difficulty | How | Cause of death | Ski/ Board | Age | Sex | Home town | Helmet | Reference | Ref # 2 |
1 | 11/26 | CO | Keystone | Elk Run | Intermediate | Hit lift tower at high speed | Skier | 18 | M | LA | Y | http://rec-law.us/2h2ul1Z | http://rec-law.us/2gXbKA8 | |
2 | 12/10 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Intermediate | Found dead | Skier | 65 | M | Lagrangeville, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hml9oW | http://rec-law.us/2gHi01C | |||
3 | 12/11 | CA | Northstar | Village Run | Expert (off duty ski instructor) | hit several rocks and crashed into a creek avoiding other skier | Skier | 35 | M | Incline Village, NV & Kings Beach | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hwJAAy | http://rec-law.us/2gwnmJQ | |
4 | 12/11 | NV | Alpental Ski area | Tree Well | death was asphyxia due to immersion in snow | Skier | 45 | M | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | ||||
5 | 12/11 | NV | Mt. Rose | The Chutes | Avalanche in closed run | Skier | 60 | M | http://rec-law.us/2gHp1iZ | http://rec-law.us/2hAAxOP | ||||
6 | 12/12 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Skier | 80 | M | Wappingers Falls, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hqD3UN | ||||||
7 | 12/19 | CO | Breckenridge | Alpine Alley | Hit a tree | accidental blunt force trauma | 48 | M | Longmont CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hckGX4 | http://rec-law.us/2ialr2Y | ||
8 | 12/29 | CO | Ski Granby Ranch | Quick Draw Express lift | Fell out of chair lift | traumatic rupture of the aorta and blunt force trauma to the torso | Skier | 40 | F | San Antonio, TX | http://rec-law.us/2ixiwhN | http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/29/mom-dies-daughters-hurt-chairlift/95988502/ | ||
9 | 12/31 | UT | Snowbasin | Hit tree | Skier | 24 | M | Ogden, UT | Y | http://rec-law.us/2iV7Qg8 | http://rec-law.us/2hQsaKC | |||
10 | 1/1/17 | MI | Crystal Mountain | Penny Lane | Intermediate | lost control and veered into a tree | crash cracked Delaney’s helmet and caused a serious brain injury | Skier | 10 | F | La Grange, IL | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hSv1pC | http://rec-law.us/2hSz19J |
11 | 1/1 | OR | Mt. Baker | Found slumped over snowmobile | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2iIa5mA | |||||||
12 | 1/7 | VT | Killington | Skyeship Gondola | Found on Floor | Fall | M | http://rec-law.us/2iWImP5 | ||||||
13 | 1/13 | CO | Breckenridge | Expert | Found by ski patrol | Skull Fracture | 47 | M | Longmot, CO | N | http://rec-law.us/2jZgniK | http://rec-law.us/2jkovaw | ||
14 | 1/16 | VT | Sugar Bush | Mount Ellen | Hit Tree | Hampden | Skier | 39 | M | Hampden, MA | N | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | |
15 | PA | Shawnee Mountain Ski Area | lost control and struck an orange safety fence | 15 | F | Singapore | http://rec-law.us/2jSL1X9 | http://rec-law.us/2j38nt0 | ||||||
16 | 1/14 | UT | Brighton Ski Resort | hit a tree | Boarder | 35 | M | Millcreek, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jsJevi | http://rec-law.us/2jGiFA6 | ||||
17 | 1/14 | NY | Belleayre Mountain Ski Center | Wanatuska Trail | Expert | Boarding | 25 | M | Centersport, NY | http://rec-law.us/2jDcHlZ | http://rec-law.us/2jGKr1J | |||
18 | 1/24 | CA | Squaw Valley | Gold Coast Ridge | denotation of an explosive charge | 42 | M | Olympic Valley, CA | http://rec-law.us/2jXfW7Y | http://rec-law.us/2kqBruQ | ||||
19 | 1/26 | WA | Stevens Pass Mountain Resort | Mill Valley side | Expert | found the man unresponsive and not breathing | 55 | M | Woodinville, WA | http://rec-law.us/2kBlZQD | ||||
20 | 1/26 | PA | Camelback Ski Resort | Hump | Expert | he went off the trail | Boarding | 21 | M | Stroudsburg | N | http://rec-law.us/2kvWmNF | ||
21 | 1/20 died 1/27 | UT | Snowbasin Resort | Bluegrass Terrain Park | He fell hard | suffered damage to his vertebrae that extended into the base of his brain | Skier | M | Ogden, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jD3onj | ||||
22 | 2/4 | WV | Snowshoe Mountain | went off the trail | Skier | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2kznvzN | http://rec-law.us/2kDUz9W | |||||
3 | 2/5 | Cannon Mountain | Taft Slalom | lost control | 57 | F | Amherst | http://rec-law.us/2jZ34iW | http://rec-law.us/2kvXumu | |||||
24 | 2/6 | WA | 49 Degrees North ski area | Tree Skiing | falling into a tree well | Boarder | M | http://rec-law.us/2lyPijQ | http://rec-law.us/2kx9IZY | |||||
25 | 2/8 | NY | Hunter Mountain | Annapurna Trail | Expert | lost control and slid about 200 feet before going off the trail and striking several trees | Skier | 58 | M | Orange County | http://rec-law.us/2lshaWj | http://rec-law.us/2kYw5dN | ||
26 | 2/10 | CO | Breckenridge Ski Area | Advanced | severe head trauma | 26 | M | Mexico City, MX | Y | http://rec-law.us/2lvm4G6 | http://rec-law.us/2lIhwJk | |||
27 | 2/11 | VT | Killington | collided with a tree | Boarder | 26 | M | Toms River, NJ | N | http://rec-law.us/2kkXYsm | http://rec-law.us/2l41Hiz | |||
28 | 2/11 | CT | Mohawk Mountain Ski Area | Collison with another skier | Skier | F | http://rec-law.us/2l5nXbM | http://rec-law.us/2l5nXbM | ||||||
29 | 2/13 | VT | Stowe | Cliff Trail | trapped in deep snow in a tree well | hypothermia | Boarder | 22 | M | Needham, M | http://rec-law.us/2lhaAW2 | http://rec-law.us/2lhaAW2 | ||
30 | 2/15 | CO | Winter Park Resort | Forget-Me-Not | trapped in deep snow in a tree well | 17 | F | http://rec-law.us/2llpNoO | http://rec-law.us/2llpNoO | |||||
31 | 2/13 | CO | Crested Butte | severe head injury | Skier | 44 | M | KS | Y | http://rec-law.us/2l7e906 | http://rec-law.us/2pATHs5 | |||
32 | 2/17 | OH | Snow Trails | tried to avoid a collision with a young girl and man in his path | Hit a pole
|
59 | M | Gahanna, OH | http://rec-law.us/2l7f29b | http://rec-law.us/2lWb3xL | ||||
33 | 2/22 | NH | Cranmore Mountain Resort | Intermediate | crashed into a tree. | 13 | M | Y | http://rec-law.us/2mUPNWh | http://rec-law.us/2n6261d | ||||
34 | 2/23 | CA | Northstar | Treewell | 43 | M | New Canaan, CN | http://rec-law.us/2moN72Y | http://rec-law.us/2mwrsoJ | |||||
35 | 2/25 | CO | Purgatory Resort | Demon | Intermediate | struck a tree | 34 | F | Farmington, NM | Y | http://rec-law.us/2lJqrw5 | http://rec-law.us/2lK3mb3 | ||
36 | 2/26 | ID | Sun Valley | Can-Can | Tree well | 34 | M | Meridian | http://rec-law.us/2lc9awN | http://rec-law.us/2lcoPMP | ||||
37 | 3/3 | ME | Sugarloaf | Skidder trail | Double Black Diamond | 24 | M | Farmington | N | http://rec-law.us/2n3BYEe | http://rec-law.us/2n3BYEe | |||
38 | 3/3 | CO | Breckenridge Ski Resort | Broke her leg | 15 | F | Wichita, KS | N | http://rec-law.us/2meE4C0 | http://rec-law.us/2lDPKkK | ||||
39 | Hunter Mountain | Racer’s Edge Trail | Double Black Diamond | went off the trail and struck several trees | 20 | M | Cream Ridge, NJ | http://rec-law.us/2mx7FZo | ||||||
40 | 3/7 | CO | Eldora Mountain Resort | Mule Shoe | black diamond | crashing into a tree | Boarder | 23 | M | Aurora, CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2mlzcg2 | http://rec-law.us/2mH5T8F | |
41 | 3/7 | OR | Mt. Hood Meadows | Jacks Woods | extremely difficult | Hit a tree, found in tree well | 57 | M | Dallas TX | http://rec-law.us/2mWPL20 | http://rec-law.us/2nzdvrw | |||
42 | 3/19 | CO | Buttermilk Mountain | Green | hit a tree | multiple skull fractures and other various serious injuries | 20 | M | OK | N | http://rec-law.us/2lRwy34 | http://rec-law.us/2n5lLSu | ||
43 | 3/12 | NH | Mount Sunapee | Skyway trail | intermediate | Found unresponsive | Suicide | 45 | M | North Andover, Mass | http://rec-law.us/2ne4xCJ | http://rec-law.us/2ozEoOn | ||
44 | 3/24 | CO | Loveland Ski Area | Lift 8 | skied directly into a tree | Ski | 35 | M | Georgetown, CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2ocO7Ic | |||
45 | 3/21 | CO | Wolf Creek Ski Area | Summer Days | Intermediate | lost a ski, and, as a result, began to “tomahawk” | internal injuries, including broken ribs and a collapsed lung | Ski | 56 | M | FL | Y | http://rec-law.us/2oy9qDz | http://rec-law.us/2oy9qDz |
46 | 4/8 | CO | Breckenridge Ski Area | Springmeier Run | Beginner | colliding with a tree stump | blunt-force trauma to the abdomen | Ski | 12 | M | Hermosa Beach, CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2o3lrBh | http://rec-law.us/2p1cV9y |
47 | 4/28 | CO | Loveland Ski Area | West Ropes run off Lift 4 | Expert | involved in an accident in the trees | Skier | 59 | M | Boulder, CO | http://rec-law.us/2q2vlr9 | http://rec-law.us/2qvTKVV | ||
48 | 5/3 | UT | Snowbird Ski Area | Chip’s Run | found him unresponsive | Skier | 54 | M | Millcreek, UT | http://rec-law.us/2pBKXk8 | http://rec-law.us/2p9nNOo |
Download a PDF of this chart here. 2016 – 2017 Ski Season Deaths 5.5.17
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the ski areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2017 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: http://www.recreation-law.com
Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com
#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, Skiing, Snowboarding, Fatality, Ski Area, Tree Well, Avalanche, In Bounds, Collision, Ski Instructor, Natural Causes, Northstar, Killington, Alpental, Mt. Rose, Keystone, Breckenridge, Northstar, 49 Degrees North, Hunter Mountain, Cannon Mountain, Snowshoe Mountain, Snowbasin Resort,
2016-2017 In bound ski/board fatalities
Posted: April 8, 2017 Filed under: Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: 49 Degrees North, Alpental, avalanche, Breckenridge, Cannon Mountain, Collision, fatality, Hunter Mountain, In Bounds, Keystone, Killington, Loveland Ski Area, Mt. Rose, Natural Causes, Northstar, ski area, ski instructor, skiing, Snowbasin Resort, snowboarding, Snowshoe Mountain, Tree Well, Wolf Creek Ski Area Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of March 30, 2017. Thanks.
Skiing and Snowboarding are still safer than being in your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from skiing but to help you understand the risks.
Red type is natural or medical conditions that occurred inbounds on the slopes
Green Type is Fatalities while sledding at the Resort
Blue Type is a Lift Accidents
Purple Type is Employee or Ski Patroller
# | Date | State | Resort | Where | Trail Difficulty | How | Cause of death | Ski/ Board | Age | Sex | Home town | Helmet | Reference | Ref # 2 |
1 | 11/26 | CO | Keystone | Elk Run | Intermediate | Hit lift tower at high speed | Skier | 18 | M | LA | Y | http://rec-law.us/2h2ul1Z | http://rec-law.us/2gXbKA8 | |
2 | 12/10 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Intermediate | Found dead | Skier | 65 | M | Lagrangeville, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hml9oW | http://rec-law.us/2gHi01C | |||
3 | 12/11 | CA | Northstar | Village Run | Expert (off duty ski instructor) | hit several rocks and crashed into a creek avoiding other skier | Skier | 35 | M | Incline Village, NV & Kings Beach | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hwJAAy | http://rec-law.us/2gwnmJQ | |
4 | 12/11 | NV | Alpental Ski area | Tree Well | death was asphyxia due to immersion in snow | Skier | 45 | M | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | ||||
5 | 12/11 | NV | Mt. Rose | The Chutes | Avalanche in closed run | Skier | 60 | M | http://rec-law.us/2gHp1iZ | http://rec-law.us/2hAAxOP | ||||
6 | 12/12 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Skier | 80 | M | Wappingers Falls, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hqD3UN | ||||||
7 | 12/19 | CO | Breckenridge | Alpine Alley | Hit a tree | accidental blunt force trauma | 48 | M | Longmont CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hckGX4 | http://rec-law.us/2ialr2Y | ||
8 | 12/29 | CO | Ski Granby Ranch | Quick Draw Express lift | Fell out of chair lift | traumatic rupture of the aorta and blunt force trauma to the torso | Skier | 40 | F | San Antonio, TX | http://rec-law.us/2ixiwhN | http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/29/mom-dies-daughters-hurt-chairlift/95988502/ | ||
9 | 12/31 | UT | Snowbasin | Hit tree | Skier | 24 | M | Ogden, UT | Y | http://rec-law.us/2iV7Qg8 | http://rec-law.us/2hQsaKC | |||
10 | 1/1/17 | MI | Crystal Mountain | Penny Lane | Intermediate | lost control and veered into a tree | crash cracked Delaney’s helmet and caused a serious brain injury | Skier | 10 | F | La Grange, IL | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hSv1pC | http://rec-law.us/2hSz19J |
11 | 1/1 | OR | Mt. Baker | Found slumped over snowmobile | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2iIa5mA | |||||||
12 | 1/7 | VT | Killington | Skyeship Gondola | Found on Floor | Fall | M | http://rec-law.us/2iWImP5 | ||||||
13 | 1/13 | CO | Breckenridge | Expert | Found by ski patrol | Skull Fracture | 47 | M | Longmot, CO | N | http://rec-law.us/2jZgniK | http://rec-law.us/2jkovaw | ||
14 | 1/16 | VT | Sugar Bush | Mount Ellen | Hit Tree | Hampden | Skier | 39 | M | Hampden, MA | N | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | |
15 | PA | Shawnee Mountain Ski Area | lost control and struck an orange safety fence | 15 | F | Singapore | http://rec-law.us/2jSL1X9 | http://rec-law.us/2j38nt0 | ||||||
16 | 1/14 | UT | Brighton Ski Resort | hit a tree | Boarder | 35 | M | Millcreek, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jsJevi | http://rec-law.us/2jGiFA6 | ||||
17 | 1/14 | NY | Belleayre Mountain Ski Center | Wanatuska Trail | Expert | Boarding | 25 | M | Centersport, NY | http://rec-law.us/2jDcHlZ | http://rec-law.us/2jGKr1J | |||
18 | 1/24 | CA | Squaw Valley | Gold Coast Ridge | denotation of an explosive charge | 42 | M | Olympic Valley, CA | http://rec-law.us/2jXfW7Y | http://rec-law.us/2kqBruQ | ||||
19 | 1/26 | WA | Stevens Pass Mountain Resort | Mill Valley side | Expert | found the man unresponsive and not breathing | 55 | M | Woodinville, WA | http://rec-law.us/2kBlZQD | ||||
20 | 1/26 | PA | Camelback Ski Resort | Hump | Expert | he went off the trail | Boarding | 21 | M | Stroudsburg | N | http://rec-law.us/2kvWmNF | ||
21 | 1/20 died 1/27 | UT | Snowbasin Resort | Bluegrass Terrain Park | He fell hard | suffered damage to his vertebrae that extended into the base of his brain | Skier | M | Ogden, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jD3onj | ||||
22 | 2/4 | WV | Snowshoe Mountain | went off the trail | Skier | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2kznvzN | http://rec-law.us/2kDUz9W | |||||
3 | 2/5 | Cannon Mountain | Taft Slalom | lost control | 57 | F | Amherst | http://rec-law.us/2jZ34iW | http://rec-law.us/2kvXumu | |||||
24 | 2/6 | WA | 49 Degrees North ski area | Tree Skiiing | falling into a tree well | Boarder | M | http://rec-law.us/2lyPijQ | http://rec-law.us/2kx9IZY | |||||
25 | 2/8 | NY | Hunter Mountain | Annapurna Trail | Expert | lost control and slid about 200 feet before going off the trail and striking several trees | Skier | 58 | M | Orange County | http://rec-law.us/2lshaWj | http://rec-law.us/2kYw5dN | ||
26 | 2/10 | CO | Breckenridge Ski Area | Advanced | severe head trauma | 26 | M | Mexico City, MX | Y | http://rec-law.us/2lvm4G6 | http://rec-law.us/2lIhwJk | |||
27 | 2/11 | VT | Killington | collided with a tree | Boarder | 26 | M | Toms River, NJ | N | http://rec-law.us/2kkXYsm | http://rec-law.us/2l41Hiz | |||
28 | 2/11 | CT | Mohawk Mountain Ski Area | Collison with another skier | Skier | F | http://rec-law.us/2l5nXbM | http://rec-law.us/2l5nXbM | ||||||
29 | 2/13 | VT | Stowe | Cliff Trail | trapped in deep snow in a tree well | hypothermia | Boarder | 22 | M | Needham, M | http://rec-law.us/2lhaAW2 | http://rec-law.us/2lhaAW2 | ||
30 | 2/15 | CO | Winter Park Resort | Forget-Me-Not | trapped in deep snow in a tree well | 17 | F | http://rec-law.us/2llpNoO | http://rec-law.us/2llpNoO | |||||
31 | severe head injury | 44 | M | KS | http://rec-law.us/2l7e906 | |||||||||
32 | 2/17 | OH | Snow Trails | tried to avoid a collision with a young girl and man in his path | Hit a pole
|
59 | M | Gahanna, OH | http://rec-law.us/2l7f29b | http://rec-law.us/2lWb3xL | ||||
33 | 2/22 | NH | Cranmore Mountain Resort | Intermediate | crashed into a tree. | 13 | M | Y | http://rec-law.us/2mUPNWh | http://rec-law.us/2n6261d | ||||
34 | 2/23 | CA | Northstar | Treewell | 43 | M | New Canaan, CN | http://rec-law.us/2moN72Y | http://rec-law.us/2mwrsoJ | |||||
35 | 2/25 | CO | Purgatory Resort | Demon | Intermediate | struck a tree | 34 | F | Farmington, NM | Y | http://rec-law.us/2lJqrw5 | http://rec-law.us/2lK3mb3 | ||
36 | 2/26 | ID | Sun Valley | Can-Can | Tree well | 34 | M | Meridian | http://rec-law.us/2lc9awN | http://rec-law.us/2lcoPMP | ||||
37 | 3/3 | Me | Sugarloaf | Skidder trail | Double Black Diamond | 24 | M | Farmington | N | http://rec-law.us/2n3BYEe | http://rec-law.us/2n3BYEe | |||
38 | 3/3 | CO | Breckenridge Ski Resort | Broke her leg | 15 | F | Wichita, KS | N | http://rec-law.us/2meE4C0 | http://rec-law.us/2lDPKkK | ||||
39 | Hunter Mountain | Racer’s Edge Trail | Double Black Diamond | went off the trail and struck several trees | 20 | M | Cream Ridge, NJ | http://rec-law.us/2mx7FZo | ||||||
40 | 3/7 | CO | Eldora Mountain Resort | Mule Shoe | black diamond | crashing into a tree | Boarder | 23 | M | Aurora, CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2mlzcg2 | http://rec-law.us/2mH5T8F | |
41 | 2/19 | CO | Buttermilk Mountain | Green | hit a tree | multiple skull fractures and other various serious injuries | 20 | M | OK | N | http://rec-law.us/2lRwy34 | http://rec-law.us/2n5lLSu | ||
42 | 3/12 | NH | Mount Sunapee | Skyway trail | intermediate | M | http://rec-law.us/2ne4xCJ | |||||||
3/7 | OR | Mt. Hood Meadows | Jacks Woods | extremely difficult | Hit a tree, found in tree well | 57 | M | Dallas TX | http://rec-law.us/2mWPL20 | http://rec-law.us/2nzdvrw | ||||
3/24 | CO | Loveland Ski Area | Lift 8 | skied directly into a tree | Ski | 35 | M | Georgetown, CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2ocO7Ic | ||||
3/21 | CO | Wolf Creek Ski Area | Summer Days | Intermediate | lost a ski, and, as a result, began to “tomahawk” | internal injuries, including broken ribs and a collapsed lung | Ski | 56 | M | FL | Y | http://rec-law.us/2oy9qDz | http://rec-law.us/2oy9qDz |
Download a PDF of this chart here. 2016 – 2017 Ski Season Deaths 3.30.17
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the ski areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
If you cannot read the entire chart you can download it here.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2017 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
#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, Skiing, Snowboarding, Fatality, Ski Area, Tree Well, Avalanche, In Bounds, Collision, Ski Instructor, Natural Causes, Northstar, Killington, Alpental, Mt. Rose, Keystone, Breckenridge, Northstar, 49 Degrees North, Hunter Mountain, Cannon Mountain, Snowshoe Mountain, Snowbasin Resort,
2016-2017 In bound ski/board fatalities
Posted: March 22, 2017 Filed under: Ski Area, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: 49 Degrees North, Alpental, avalanche, Breckenridge, Cannon Mountain, Collision, fatality, Hunter Mountain, In Bounds, Keystone, Killington, Mt. Rose, Natural Causes, Northstar, ski area, ski instructor, skiing, Snowbasin Resort, snowboarding, Snowshoe Mountain, Tree Well Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of March 15, 2017. Thanks.
Skiing and Snowboarding are still safer than being in your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from skiing but to help you understand the risks.
Red type is natural or medical conditions that occurred inbounds on the slopes
Green Type is Fatalities while sledding at the Resort
Blue Type is a Lift Accidents
Purple Type is Employee or Ski Patroller
# | Date | State | Resort | Where | Trail Difficulty | How | Cause of death | Ski/ Board | Age | Sex | Home town | Helmet | Reference | Ref # 2 |
1 | 11/26 | CO | Keystone | Elk Run | Intermediate | Hit lift tower at high speed | Skier | 18 | M | LA | Y | http://rec-law.us/2h2ul1Z | http://rec-law.us/2gXbKA8 | |
2 | 12/10 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Intermediate | Found dead | Skier | 65 | M | Lagrangeville, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hml9oW | http://rec-law.us/2gHi01C | |||
3 | 12/11 | CA | Northstar | Village Run | Expert (off duty ski instructor) | hit several rocks and crashed into a creek avoiding other skier | Skier | 35 | M | Incline Village, NV & Kings Beach | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hwJAAy | http://rec-law.us/2gwnmJQ | |
4 | 12/11 | NV | Alpental Ski area | Tree Well | death was asphyxia due to immersion in snow | Skier | 45 | M | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | ||||
5 | 12/11 | NV | Mt. Rose | The Chutes | Avalanche in closed run | Skier | 60 | M | http://rec-law.us/2gHp1iZ | http://rec-law.us/2hAAxOP | ||||
6 | 12/12 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Skier | 80 | M | Wappingers Falls, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hqD3UN | ||||||
7 | 12/19 | CO | Breckenridge | Alpine Alley | Hit a tree | accidental blunt force trauma | 48 | M | Longmont CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hckGX4 | http://rec-law.us/2ialr2Y | ||
8 | 12/29 | CO | Ski Granby Ranch | Quick Draw Express lift | Fell out of chair lift | traumatic rupture of the aorta and blunt force trauma to the torso | Skier | 40 | F | San Antonio, TX | http://rec-law.us/2ixiwhN | http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/29/mom-dies-daughters-hurt-chairlift/95988502/ | ||
9 | 12/31 | UT | Snowbasin | Hit tree | Skier | 24 | M | Ogden, UT | Y | http://rec-law.us/2iV7Qg8 | http://rec-law.us/2hQsaKC | |||
10 | 1/1/17 | MI | Crystal Mountain | Penny Lane | Intermediate | lost control and veered into a tree | crash cracked Delaney’s helmet and caused a serious brain injury | Skier | 10 | F | La Grange, IL | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hSv1pC | http://rec-law.us/2hSz19J |
11 | 1/1 | OR | Mt. Baker | Found slumped over snowmobile | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2iIa5mA | |||||||
12 | 1/7 | VT | Killington | Skyeship Gondola | Found on Floor | Fall | M | http://rec-law.us/2iWImP5 | ||||||
13 | 1/13 | CO | Breckenridge | Expert | Found by ski patrol | Skull Fracture | 47 | M | Longmot, CO | N | http://rec-law.us/2jZgniK | http://rec-law.us/2jkovaw | ||
14 | 1/16 | VT | Sugar Bush | Mount Ellen | Hit Tree | Hampden | Skier | 39 | M | Hampden, MA | N | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | |
15 | PA | Shawnee Mountain Ski Area | lost control and struck an orange safety fence | 15 | F | Singapore | http://rec-law.us/2jSL1X9 | http://rec-law.us/2j38nt0 | ||||||
16 | 1/14 | UT | Brighton Ski Resort | hit a tree | Boarder | 35 | M | Millcreek, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jsJevi | http://rec-law.us/2jGiFA6 | ||||
17 | 1/14 | NY | Belleayre Mountain Ski Center | Wanatuska Trail | Expert | Boarding | 25 | M | Centersport, NY | http://rec-law.us/2jDcHlZ | http://rec-law.us/2jGKr1J | |||
18 | 1/24 | CA | Squaw Valley | Gold Coast Ridge | denotation of an explosive charge | 42 | M | Olympic Valley, CA | http://rec-law.us/2jXfW7Y | http://rec-law.us/2kqBruQ | ||||
19 | 1/26 | WA | Stevens Pass Mountain Resort | Mill Valley side | Expert | found the man unresponsive and not breathing | 55 | M | Woodinville, WA | http://rec-law.us/2kBlZQD | ||||
20 | 1/26 | PA | Camelback Ski Resort | Hump | Expert | he went off the trail | Boarding | 21 | M | Stroudsburg | N | http://rec-law.us/2kvWmNF | ||
21 | 1/20 died 1/27 | UT | Snowbasin Resort | Bluegrass Terrain Park | He fell hard | suffered damage to his vertebrae that extended into the base of his brain | Skier | M | Ogden, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jD3onj | ||||
22 | 2/4 | WV | Snowshoe Mountain | went off the trail | Skier | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2kznvzN | http://rec-law.us/2kDUz9W | |||||
3 | 2/5 | Cannon Mountain | Taft Slalom | lost control | 57 | F | Amherst | http://rec-law.us/2jZ34iW | http://rec-law.us/2kvXumu | |||||
24 | 2/6 | WA | 49 Degrees North ski area | Tree Skiiing | falling into a tree well | Boarder | M | http://rec-law.us/2lyPijQ | http://rec-law.us/2kx9IZY | |||||
25 | 2/8 | NY | Hunter Mountain | Annapurna Trail | Expert | lost control and slid about 200 feet before going off the trail and striking several trees | Skier | 58 | M | Orange County | http://rec-law.us/2lshaWj | http://rec-law.us/2kYw5dN | ||
26 | 2/10 | CO | Breckenridge Ski Area | Advanced | severe head trauma | 26 | M | Mexico City, MX | Y | http://rec-law.us/2lvm4G6 | http://rec-law.us/2lIhwJk | |||
27 | 2/11 | VT | Killington | collided with a tree | Boarder | 26 | M | Toms River, NJ | N | http://rec-law.us/2kkXYsm | http://rec-law.us/2l41Hiz | |||
28 | 2/11 | CT | Mohawk Mountain Ski Area | Collison with another skier | Skier | F | http://rec-law.us/2l5nXbM | http://rec-law.us/2l5nXbM | ||||||
29 | 2/13 | VT | Stowe | Cliff Trail | trapped in deep snow in a tree well | hypothermia | Boarder | 22 | M | Needham, M | http://rec-law.us/2lhaAW2 | http://rec-law.us/2lhaAW2 | ||
30 | 2/15 | CO | Winter Park Resort | Forget-Me-Not | trapped in deep snow in a tree well | 17 | F | http://rec-law.us/2llpNoO | http://rec-law.us/2llpNoO | |||||
31 | severe head injury | 44 | M | KS | http://rec-law.us/2l7e906 | |||||||||
32 | 2/17 | OH | Snow Trails | tried to avoid a collision with a young girl and man in his path | Hit a pole
|
59 | M | Gahanna, OH | http://rec-law.us/2l7f29b | http://rec-law.us/2lWb3xL | ||||
33 | 2/22 | NH | Cranmore Mountain Resort | Intermediate | crashed into a tree. | 13 | M | Y | http://rec-law.us/2mUPNWh | http://rec-law.us/2n6261d | ||||
34 | 2/23 | CA | Northstar | Treewell | 43 | M | New Canaan, CN | http://rec-law.us/2moN72Y | http://rec-law.us/2mwrsoJ | |||||
35 | 2/25 | CO | Purgatory Resort | Demon | Intermediate | struck a tree | 34 | F | Farmington, NM | Y | http://rec-law.us/2lJqrw5 | http://rec-law.us/2lK3mb3 | ||
36 | 2/26 | ID | Sun Valley | Can-Can | Tree well | 34 | M | Meridian | http://rec-law.us/2lc9awN | http://rec-law.us/2lcoPMP | ||||
37 | 3/3 | ME | Sugarloaf | Skidder trail | Double Black Diamond | 24 | M | Farmington | N | http://rec-law.us/2n3BYEe | http://rec-law.us/2n3BYEe | |||
38 | 3/3 | CO | Breckenridge Ski Resort | Broke her leg | 15 | F | Wichita, KS | N | http://rec-law.us/2meE4C0 | http://rec-law.us/2lDPKkK | ||||
39 | Hunter Mountain | Racer’s Edge Trail | Double Black Diamond | went off the trail and struck several trees | 20 | M | Cream Ridge, NJ | http://rec-law.us/2mx7FZo | ||||||
40 | 3/7 | CO | Eldora Mountain Resort | Mule Shoe | black diamond | crashing into a tree | Boarder | 23 | M | Aurora, CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2mlzcg2 | http://rec-law.us/2mH5T8F | |
41 | 2/19 | CO | Buttermilk Mountain | Green | hit a tree | multiple skull fractures and other various serious injuries | 20 | M | OK | N | http://rec-law.us/2lRwy34 | http://rec-law.us/2n5lLSu | ||
42 | 3/12 | Mount Sunapee | Skyway trail | intermediate | M | http://rec-law.us/2ne4xCJ |
Download a PDF of this chart here. 2016 – 2017 Ski Season Deaths 3.15.17
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the ski areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
If you cannot read the entire chart you can download it here.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2017 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
#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, Skiing, Snowboarding, Fatality, Ski Area, Tree Well, Avalanche, In Bounds, Collision, Ski Instructor, Natural Causes, Northstar, Killington, Alpental, Mt. Rose, Keystone, Breckenridge, Northstar, 49 Degrees North, Hunter Mountain, Cannon Mountain, Snowshoe Mountain, Snowbasin Resort,
2016-2017 In bound ski/board fatalities
Posted: March 1, 2017 Filed under: Ski Area, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: 49 Degrees North, Alpental, avalanche, Breckenridge, Cannon Mountain, Collision, fatality, Hunter Mountain, In Bounds, Keystone, Killington, Mt. Rose, Natural Causes, Northstar, ski area, ski instructor, Snowbasin Resort, snowboarding, Snowshoe Mountain, Tree Well Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of February 27, 2017. Thanks.
Skiing and Snowboarding are still safer than being in your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from skiing but to help you understand the risks.
Red type is natural or medical conditions that occurred inbounds on the slopes
Green Type is Fatalities while sledding at the Resort
Blue Type is a Lift Accidents
Purple Type is Employee or Ski Patroller
# | Date | State | Resort | Where | Trail Difficulty | How | Cause of death | Ski/ Board | Age | Sex | Home town | Helmet | Reference | Ref # 2 |
1 | 11/26 | CO | Keystone | Elk Run | Intermediate | Hit lift tower at high speed | Skier | 18 | M | LA | Y | http://rec-law.us/2h2ul1Z | http://rec-law.us/2gXbKA8 | |
2 | 12/10 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Intermediate | Found dead | Skier | 65 | M | Lagrangeville, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hml9oW | http://rec-law.us/2gHi01C | |||
3 | 12/11 | CA | Northstar | Village Run | Expert (off duty ski instructor) | hit several rocks and crashed into a creek avoiding other skier | Skier | 35 | M | Incline Village, NV & Kings Beach | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hwJAAy | http://rec-law.us/2gwnmJQ | |
4 | 12/11 | NV | Alpental Ski area | Tree Well | death was asphyxia due to immersion in snow | Skier | 45 | M | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | ||||
5 | 12/11 | NV | Mt. Rose | The Chutes | Avalanche in closed run | Skier | 60 | M | http://rec-law.us/2gHp1iZ | http://rec-law.us/2hAAxOP | ||||
6 | 12/12 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Skier | 80 | M | Wappingers Falls, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hqD3UN | ||||||
7 | 12/19 | CO | Breckenridge | Alpine Alley | Hit a tree | accidental blunt force trauma | 48 | M | Longmont CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hckGX4 | http://rec-law.us/2ialr2Y | ||
8 | 12/29 | CO | Ski Granby Ranch | Quick Draw Express lift | Fell out of chair lift | traumatic rupture of the aorta and blunt force trauma to the torso | Skier | 40 | F | San Antonio, TX | http://rec-law.us/2ixiwhN | http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/29/mom-dies-daughters-hurt-chairlift/95988502/ | ||
9 | 12/31 | UT | Snowbasin | Hit tree | Skier | 24 | M | Ogden, UT | Y | http://rec-law.us/2iV7Qg8 | http://rec-law.us/2hQsaKC | |||
10 | 1/1/17 | MI | Crystal Mountain | Penny Lane | Intermediate | lost control and veered into a tree | crash cracked Delaney’s helmet and caused a serious brain injury | Skier | 10 | F | La Grange, IL | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hSv1pC | http://rec-law.us/2hSz19J |
11 | 1/1 | OR | Mt. Baker | Found slumped over snowmobile | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2iIa5mA | |||||||
12 | 1/7 | VT | Killington | Skyeship Gondola | Found on Floor | Fall | M | http://rec-law.us/2iWImP5 | ||||||
13 | 1/13 | CO | Breckenridge | Expert | Found by ski patrol | Skull Fracture | 47 | M | Longmot, CO | N | http://rec-law.us/2jZgniK | http://rec-law.us/2jkovaw | ||
14 | 1/16 | VT | Sugar Bush | Mount Ellen | Hit Tree | Hampden | Skier | 39 | M | Hampden, MA | N | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | |
15 | PA | Shawnee Mountain Ski Area | lost control and struck an orange safety fence | 15 | F | Singapore | http://rec-law.us/2jSL1X9 | http://rec-law.us/2j38nt0 | ||||||
16 | 1/14 | UT | Brighton Ski Resort | hit a tree | Boarder | 35 | M | Millcreek, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jsJevi | http://rec-law.us/2jGiFA6 | ||||
17 | 1/14 | NY | Belleayre Mountain Ski Center | Wanatuska Trail | Expert | Boarding | 25 | M | Centersport, NY | http://rec-law.us/2jDcHlZ | http://rec-law.us/2jGKr1J | |||
18 | 1/24 | CA | Squaw Valley | Gold Coast Ridge | denotation of an explosive charge | 42 | M | Olympic Valley, CA | http://rec-law.us/2jXfW7Y | http://rec-law.us/2kqBruQ | ||||
19 | 1/26 | WA | Stevens Pass Mountain Resort | Mill Valley side | Expert | found the man unresponsive and not breathing | 55 | M | Woodinville, WA | http://rec-law.us/2kBlZQD | ||||
20 | 1/26 | PA | Camelback Ski Resort | Hump | Expert | he went off the trail | Boarding | 21 | M | Stroudsburg | N | http://rec-law.us/2kvWmNF | ||
21 | 1/20 died 1/27 | UT | Snowbasin Resort | Bluegrass Terrain Park | He fell hard | suffered damage to his vertebrae that extended into the base of his brain | Skier | M | Ogden, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jD3onj | ||||
22 | 2/4 | WV | Snowshoe Mountain | went off the trail | Skier | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2kznvzN | http://rec-law.us/2kDUz9W | |||||
3 | 2/5 | Cannon Mountain | Taft Slalom | lost control | 57 | F | Amherst | http://rec-law.us/2jZ34iW | http://rec-law.us/2kvXumu | |||||
24 | 2/6 | WA | 49 Degrees North ski area | Tree Skiiing | falling into a tree well | Boarder | M | http://rec-law.us/2lyPijQ | http://rec-law.us/2kx9IZY | |||||
25 | 2/8 | NY | Hunter Mountain | Annapurna Trail | Expert | lost control and slid about 200 feet before going off the trail and striking several trees | Skier | 58 | M | Orange County | http://rec-law.us/2lshaWj | http://rec-law.us/2kYw5dN | ||
26 | 2/10 | CO | Breckenridge Ski Area | Advanced | severe head trauma | 26 | M | Mexico City, MX | Y | http://rec-law.us/2lvm4G6 | http://rec-law.us/2lIhwJk | |||
27 | 2/11 | VT | Killington | collided with a tree | Boarder | 26 | M | Toms River, NJ | N | http://rec-law.us/2kkXYsm | http://rec-law.us/2l41Hiz | |||
28 | 2/11 | CT | Mohawk Mountain Ski Area | Collison with another skier | Skier | F | http://rec-law.us/2l5nXbM | http://rec-law.us/2l5nXbM | ||||||
29 | 2/13 | VT | Stowe | Cliff Trail | trapped in deep snow in a tree well | hypothermia | Boarder | 22 | M | Needham, M | http://rec-law.us/2lhaAW2 | http://rec-law.us/2lhaAW2 | ||
30 | 2/15 | CO | Winter Park Resort | Forget-Me-Not | trapped in deep snow in a tree well | 17 | F | http://rec-law.us/2llpNoO | http://rec-law.us/2llpNoO | |||||
31 | severe head injury | 44 | M | KS | http://rec-law.us/2l7e906 | |||||||||
32 | 2/17 | OH | Snow Trails | tried to avoid a collision with a young girl and man in his path | Hit a pole
|
59 | M | Gahanna, OH | http://rec-law.us/2l7f29b | http://rec-law.us/2lWb3xL | ||||
33 | 2/23 | CA | Northstar | Treewell | 43 | M | New Canaan, CN | http://rec-law.us/2moN72Y | http://rec-law.us/2mwrsoJ | |||||
34 | 2/25 | CO | Purgatory Resort | Demon | Intermediate | struck a tree | 34 | F | Farmington, NM | Y | http://rec-law.us/2lJqrw5 | http://rec-law.us/2lK3mb3 |
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the ski areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
If you cannot read the entire chart you can download it here. 2016-2017-ski-season-deaths-3-1-17
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2017 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
#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, Skiing, Snowboarding, Fatality, Ski Area, Tree Well, Avalanche, In Bounds, Collision, Ski Instructor, Natural Causes, Northstar, Killington, Alpental, Mt. Rose, Keystone, Breckenridge, Northstar, 49 Degrees North, Hunter Mountain, Cannon Mountain, Snowshoe Mountain, Snowbasin Resort,
2016-2017 In Bound ski/board Fatalities
Posted: February 15, 2017 Filed under: Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: fatality, Inbound, ski area, Ski Resort Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of February 11, 2017. Thanks.
Skiing and Snowboarding are still safer than being in your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from skiing but to help you understand the risks.
Red type is natural or medical conditions that occurred inbounds on the slopes
Green Type is Fatalities while sledding at the Resort
Blue Type is a Lift Accidents
Purple Type is Employee or Ski Patroller
# | Date | State | Resort | Where | Trail Difficulty | How | Cause of death | Ski/ Board | Age | Sex | Home town | Helmet | Reference | Ref # 2 |
1 | 11/26 | CO | Keystone | Elk Run | Intermediate | Hit lift tower at high speed | Skier | 18 | M | LA | Y | http://rec-law.us/2h2ul1Z | http://rec-law.us/2gXbKA8 | |
2 | 12/10 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Intermediate | Found dead | Skier | 65 | M | Lagrangeville, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hml9oW | http://rec-law.us/2gHi01C | |||
3 | 12/11 | CA | Northstar | Village Run | Expert (off duty ski instructor) | hit several rocks and crashed into a creek avoiding other skier | Skier | 35 | M | Incline Village, NV & Kings Beach | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hwJAAy | http://rec-law.us/2gwnmJQ | |
4 | 12/11 | NV | Alpental Ski area | Tree Well | death was asphyxia due to immersion in snow | Skier | 45 | M | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | http://rec-law.us/2hqZSb9 | ||||
5 | 12/11 | NV | Mt. Rose | The Chutes | Avalanche in closed run | Skier | 60 | M | http://rec-law.us/2gHp1iZ | http://rec-law.us/2hAAxOP | ||||
6 | 12/12 | VT | Killington Ski Area | Skier | 80 | M | Wappingers Falls, NY | http://rec-law.us/2hqD3UN | ||||||
7 | 12/19 | CO | Keystone | Alpine Alley | Hit a tree | accidental blunt force trauma | 48 | M | Longmont CO | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hckGX4 | http://rec-law.us/2ialr2Y | ||
8 | 12/29 | CO | Ski Granby Ranch | Quick Draw Express lift | Fell out of chair lift | traumatic rupture of the aorta and blunt force trauma to the torso | Skier | 40 | F | San Antonio, TX | http://rec-law.us/2ixiwhN | http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/29/mom-dies-daughters-hurt-chairlift/95988502/ | ||
9 | 12/31 | UT | Snowbasin | Hit tree | Skier | 24 | M | Ogden, UT | Y | http://rec-law.us/2iV7Qg8 | http://rec-law.us/2hQsaKC | |||
10 | 1/1/17 | MI | Crystal Mountain | Penny Lane | Intermediate | lost control and veered into a tree | crash cracked Delaney’s helmet and caused a serious brain injury | Skier | 10 | F | La Grange, IL | Y | http://rec-law.us/2hSv1pC | http://rec-law.us/2hSz19J |
11 | 1/1 | OR | Mt. Baker | Found slumped over snowmobile | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2iIa5mA | |||||||
12 | 1/7 | VT | Killington | Skyeship Gondola | Found on Floor | Fall | M | http://rec-law.us/2iWImP5 | ||||||
13 | 1/13 | CO | Breckenridge | Expert | Found by ski patrol | Skull Fracture | 47 | M | Longmot, CO | N | http://rec-law.us/2jZgniK | http://rec-law.us/2jkovaw | ||
14 | 1/16 | VT | Sugar Bush | Mount Ellen | Hit Tree | Hampden | Skier | 39 | M | Hampden, MA | N | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | http://rec-law.us/2jqt6un | |
15 | PA | Shawnee Mountain Ski Area | lost control and struck an orange safety fence | 15 | F | Singapore | http://rec-law.us/2jSL1X9 | http://rec-law.us/2j38nt0 | ||||||
16 | 1/14 | UT | Brighton Ski Resort | hit a tree | Boarder | 35 | M | Millcreek, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jsJevi | http://rec-law.us/2jGiFA6 | ||||
17 | 1/14 | NY | Belleayre Mountain Ski Center | Wanatuska Trail | Expert | Boarding | 25 | M | Centersport, NY | http://rec-law.us/2jDcHlZ | http://rec-law.us/2jGKr1J | |||
18 | 1/24 | CA | Squaw Valley | Gold Coast Ridge | denotation of an explosive charge | 42 | M | Olympic Valley, CA | http://rec-law.us/2jXfW7Y | http://rec-law.us/2kqBruQ | ||||
19 | 1/26 | WA | Stevens Pass Mountain Resort | Mill Valley side | Expert | found the man unresponsive and not breathing | 55 | M | Woodinville, WA | http://rec-law.us/2kBlZQD | ||||
20 | 1/26 | PA | Camelback Ski Resort | Hump | Expert | he went off the trail | Boarding | 21 | M | Stroudsburg | N | http://rec-law.us/2kvWmNF | ||
21 | 1/20 died 1/27 | UT | Snowbasin Resort | Bluegrass Terrain Park | He fell hard | suffered damage to his vertebrae that extended into the base of his brain | Skier | M | Ogden, UT | http://rec-law.us/2jD3onj | ||||
22 | 2/4 | WV | Snowshoe Mountain | went off the trail | Skier | 67 | M | http://rec-law.us/2kznvzN | http://rec-law.us/2kDUz9W | |||||
3 | 2/5 | Cannon Mountain | Taft Slalom | lost control | 57 | F | Amherst | http://rec-law.us/2jZ34iW | http://rec-law.us/2kvXumu | |||||
24 | 2/6 | WA | 49 Degrees North ski area | Tree Skiiing | falling into a tree well | Boarder | M | http://rec-law.us/2lyPijQ | http://rec-law.us/2kx9IZY | |||||
25 | 2/8 | NY | Hunter Mountain | Annapurna Trail | Expert | lost control and slid about 200 feet before going off the trail and striking several trees | Skier | 58 | M | Orange County | http://rec-law.us/2lshaWj | http://rec-law.us/2kYw5dN | ||
26 | 2/10 | CO | Breckenridge Ski Area | Advanced | 26 | M | Mexico | http://rec-law.us/2lvm4G6 | ||||||
27 | 2/11 | VT | Killington | collided with a tree | Boarder | 26 | M | Toms River, NJ | N | http://rec-law.us/2kkXYsm | http://rec-law.us/2l41Hiz |
Download a PDF of this chart here: 2016-2017-ski-season-fatalities-2-11-17
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the ski areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
If you cannot read the entire chart you can download it here.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2017 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
#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, Skiing, Snowboarding, Fatality, Ski Area, Tree Well, Avalanche, In Bounds, Collision, Ski Instructor, Natural Causes, Northstar, Killington, Alpental, Mt. Rose, Keystone, Breckenridge, Northstar, 49 Degrees North, Hunter Mountain, Cannon Mountain, Snowshoe Mountain, Snowbasin Resort,
2016-2017 In bound ski/board fatalities
Posted: January 25, 2017 Filed under: Avalanche, Ski Area, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding, Snow Tubing | Tags: avalanche, Collision, fatality, In Bounds, Natural Causes, ski area, ski instructor, skiing, snowboarding, Tree Well 2 CommentsThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of January 21, 2017. Thanks.
Skiing and Snowboarding are still safer than being in your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from skiing but to help you understand the risks.
Red type is natural or medical conditions that occurred inbounds on the slopes
Green Type is Fatalities while sledding at the Resort
Blue Type is a Lift Accidents
Purple Type is Employee or Ski Patroller
# |
Date |
State |
Resort |
Where |
Trail Difficulty |
How |
Cause of death |
Ski/ Board |
Age |
Sex |
Home town |
Helmet |
Reference |
Ref # 2 |
1 |
11/26 |
CO |
Keystone |
Elk Run |
Intermediate |
Hit lift tower at high speed |
|
Skier |
18 |
M |
LA |
Y |
||
2 |
12/10 |
VT |
Killington Ski Area |
|
Intermediate |
Found dead |
|
Skier |
65 |
M |
Lagrangeville, NY |
|
||
3 |
12/11 |
CA |
Northstar |
Village Run |
Expert (off duty ski instructor) |
hit several rocks and crashed into a creek avoiding other skier |
|
Skier |
35 |
M |
Incline Village, NV & Kings Beach |
Y |
||
4 |
12/11 |
NV |
Alpental Ski area |
|
|
Tree Well |
death was asphyxia due to immersion in snow |
Skier |
45 |
M |
|
|
||
5 |
12/11 |
NV |
Mt. Rose |
The Chutes |
|
Avalanche in closed run |
|
Skier |
60 |
M |
|
|
||
6 |
12/12 |
VT |
Killington Ski Area |
|
|
|
|
Skier |
80 |
M |
Wappingers Falls, NY |
|
|
|
7 |
12/19 |
CO |
Keystone |
Alpine Alley |
|
Hit a tree |
accidental blunt force trauma |
|
48 |
M |
Longmont CO |
Y |
||
8 |
12/29 |
CO |
Ski Granby Ranch |
Quick Draw Express lift |
|
Fell out of chair lift |
traumatic rupture of the aorta and blunt force trauma to the torso |
Skier |
40 |
F |
San Antonio, TX |
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/29/mom-dies-daughters-hurt-chairlift/95988502/ |
|
9 |
12/31 |
UT |
Snowbasin |
|
|
Hit tree |
|
Skier |
24 |
M |
Ogden, UT |
Y |
||
10 |
1/1/17 |
MI |
Crystal Mountain |
Penny Lane |
Intermediate |
lost control and veered into a tree |
crash cracked Delaney’s helmet and caused a serious brain injury |
Skier |
10 |
F |
La Grange, IL |
Y |
||
11 |
1/1 |
OR |
Mt. Baker |
|
|
Found slumped over snowmobile |
|
|
67 |
M |
|
|
|
|
12 |
1/7 |
VT |
Killington |
Skyeship Gondola |
|
Found on Floor |
Fall |
|
|
M |
|
|
|
|
13 |
1/13 |
CO |
Breckenridge |
|
Expert |
Found by ski patrol |
Skull Fracture |
|
47 |
M |
Longmot, CO |
N |
||
13 |
1/16 |
VT |
Sugar Bush |
Mount Ellen |
|
Hit Tree |
Hampden |
Skier |
39 |
M |
Hampden, MA |
N |
||
14 |
|
PA |
Shawnee Mountain Ski Area |
|
|
lost control and struck an orange safety fence |
|
|
15 |
F |
Singapore |
|
||
|
1/14 |
UT |
Brighton Ski Resort |
|
|
hit a tree |
|
Boarder |
35 |
M |
Millcreek, UT |
|
||
|
1/14 |
NY |
Belleayre Mountain Ski Center |
Wanatuska Trail |
Expert |
|
|
Boarding |
25 |
M |
Centersport, NY |
|
Download a PDF of this chart here. 2016-2017-ski-season-deaths
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the ski areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
If you cannot read the entire chart you can download it here.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2017 Recreation Law (720) 334-8529
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
#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, Skiing, Snowboarding, Fatality, Ski Area, Tree Well, Avalanche, In Bounds, Collision, Ski Instructor, Natural Causes, Northstart, Killington, Alpental, Mt. Rose, Keystone,
2016-2017 In bound ski/board fatalities (Way to Early, Way to Many)
Posted: December 14, 2016 Filed under: Avalanche, Ski Area, Skier v. Skier, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Alpental, avalanche, Collision, fatality, In Bounds, Keystone, Killington, Mt. Rose, Natural Causes, Northstart, ski area, ski instructor, skiing, snowboarding, Tree Well Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of December 12, 2016. Thanks.
Skiing and Snowboarding are still safer than being in your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from skiing but to help you understand the risks.
Red type is natural or medical conditions that occurred inbounds on the slopes
Green Type is Fatalities while sledding at the Resort
Blue Type is a Lift Accidents
Purple Type is Employee or Ski Patroller
# |
Date |
State |
Resort |
Where |
Trail Difficulty |
How |
Cause of death |
Ski/ Board |
Age |
Sex |
Home town |
Helmet |
Reference |
Ref # 2 |
1 |
11/26 |
CO |
Keystone |
Elk Run |
Intermediate |
Hit lift tower at high speed |
|
Skier |
18 |
M |
LA |
Y |
||
2 |
12/10 |
VT |
Killington Ski Area |
|
Intermediate |
Found dead |
|
Skier |
65 |
M |
Lagrangeville, NY |
|
||
3 |
12/11 |
CA |
Northstar |
Village Run |
Expert (off duty ski instructor) |
hit several rocks and crashed into a creek avoiding other skier |
|
Skier |
35 |
M |
Incline Village, NV & Kings Beach |
Y |
||
4 |
12/11 |
NV |
Alpental Ski area |
|
|
Tree Well |
death was asphyxia due to immersion in snow |
Skier |
45 |
M |
|
|
||
5 |
12/11 |
NV |
Mt. Rose |
The Chutes |
|
Avalanche in closed run |
|
Skier |
60 |
M |
|
|
||
6 |
12/12 |
VT |
Killington Ski Area |
|
|
|
|
Skier |
80 |
M |
NY |
|
|
Download a PDF of this chart here: 2016-2017-ski-season-deaths-12-14-16
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the ski areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
If you cannot read the entire chart you can download it here.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
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
#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, Skiing, Snowboarding, Fatality, Ski Area, Tree Well, Avalanche, In Bounds, Collision, Ski Instructor, Natural Causes, Northstart, Killington, Alpental, Mt. Rose, Keystone,
Summer 2016 Commercial Fatalities
Posted: December 7, 2016 Filed under: Avalanche, Climbing, Mountaineering, Paddlesports | Tags: avalanche, Cat Skiing, fatality, Oregon, Whitewater Rafting Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of December 1, 2016. Thanks.
Rafting, Mountaineering, Skiing out of bounds and other sports are probably still safer than your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from any activity but to help you understand the risks and to study.
Red is a probable death due to medical issues unrelated to the activity
Blue is an employee fatality
Dark blue is a death of an employee while working
Date |
Activity |
State |
Location |
What |
Age |
Sex |
Location 2 |
Reference |
Ref 2 |
Company |
3/22 |
Cat Skiing |
OR |
Mt. Bailey |
Avalanche hit tree |
|
M |
|
|
||
5/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
WA |
Wenatchee River |
Raft Flipped |
53 |
M |
Dryden |
|
Orion River |
|
|
Whitewater Rafting |
ME |
Dead River |
Fell out |
52 |
M |
|
North Country Rivers |
||
5/22 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
61 |
F |
Parkdale |
Echo Canyon River Expeditions |
||
6/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Lowe River |
Fell out |
48 |
F |
|
|
|
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Roaring Fork |
Flip |
50 |
M |
Slaughterhouse section |
Aspen Whitewater Rafting |
||
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
69 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
67 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
6/22 |
Sea Kayaking |
ME |
Downeast Maine |
High Seas |
63 |
M |
Corea Harbor |
|
SeaScape Kayaks |
|
6/22 |
Sea Kayaking |
ME |
Downeast Maine |
High Seas |
|
M |
Corea Harbor |
|
SeaScape Kayaks |
|
6/24/16 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Green River |
|
63 |
F |
Disaster Falls |
Adrift Adventures |
||
7/2/16 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
51 |
F |
Zoom Flume |
River Runners |
||
7/17 |
Inflatable Kayak |
OR |
Rogue River |
Fell out & trapped unwater |
57 |
M |
Wildcat Rapid |
|
|
|
7/21 |
Canoe Trip |
MN |
Boundary Waters |
Lighting Strike |
39 |
F |
Basswood Lake |
BSA Northern Tier High Adventure Base |
||
7/21 |
Canoe Trip |
MN |
Boundary Waters |
Lighting Strike |
13 |
M |
Basswood Lake |
BSA Northern Tier High Adventure Base |
||
7/23 |
Mountain Climbing |
WY |
Grand Teton National Park |
Fell |
42 |
M |
Valhalla Canyon near the Black Ice Coulier |
Exum |
||
9/12 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AZ |
Grand Canyon NP |
Guide walked out of camp with inflatable |
34 |
M |
Pancho’s Kitchen |
|
OARS |
If you would like a PDF of this chart please click here.
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
What 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
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
#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, Fatality, Avalanche, Cat Skiing, Oregon, Whitewater Rafting,
Summer 2016 Commercial Fatalities
Posted: September 7, 2016 Filed under: Paddlesports, Sea Kayaking | Tags: avalanche, Cat Skiing, fatality, Oregon, Whitewater Rafting Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of September 1, 2016. Thanks.
Rafting, Mountaineering, Skiing out of bounds and other sports are probably still safer than your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from any activity but to help you understand the risks and to study.
Red is a probable death due to medical issues unrelated to the activity
Blue is an employee fatality
Dark blue is a death of an employee while working
Date |
Activity |
State |
Location |
What |
Age |
Sex |
Location 2 |
Reference |
Ref 2 |
Company |
3/22 |
Cat Skiing |
OR |
Mt. Bailey |
Avalanche hit tree |
|
M |
|
|
||
5/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
WA |
Wenatchee River |
Raft Flipped |
53 |
M |
Dryden |
|
Orion River |
|
|
Whitewater Rafting |
ME |
Dead River |
Fell out |
52 |
M |
|
North Country Rivers |
||
5/22 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
61 |
F |
Parkdale |
Echo Canyon River Expeditions |
||
6/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Lowe River |
Fell out |
48 |
F |
|
|
|
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Roaring Fork |
Flip |
50 |
M |
Slaughterhouse section |
Aspen Whitewater Rafting |
||
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
69 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
67 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
6/22 |
Sea Kayaking |
ME |
Downeast Maine |
High Seas |
63 |
M |
Corea Harbor |
|
SeaScape Kayaks |
|
6/22 |
Sea Kayaking |
ME |
Downeast Maine |
High Seas |
|
M |
Corea Harbor |
|
SeaScape Kayaks |
|
6/24/16 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Green River |
|
63 |
F |
Disaster Falls |
Adrift Adventures |
||
7/2/16 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
51 |
F |
Zoom Flume |
River Runners |
||
7/17 |
Inflatable Kayak |
OR |
Rogue River |
Fell out & trapped unwater |
57 |
M |
Wildcat Rapid |
|
|
|
7/21 |
Canoe Trip |
MN |
Boundary Waters |
Lighting Strike |
39 |
F |
Basswood Lake |
BSA Northern Tier High Adventure Base |
||
7/21 |
Canoe Trip |
MN |
Boundary Waters |
Lighting Strike |
13 |
M |
Basswood Lake |
BSA Northern Tier High Adventure Base |
||
7/23 |
Mountain Climbing |
WY |
Grand Teton National Park |
Fell |
42 |
M |
Valhalla Canyon near the Black Ice Coulier |
Exum |
If you would like a PDF of this chart please click here. 2016 Commercial Fatalities 9.1.16
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
What 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
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
#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, Fatality, Avalanche, Cat Skiing, Oregon, Whitewater Rafting,
Summer 2016 Commercial Fatalities
Posted: July 6, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cat Skiing, fatality, Sea Kayaking, Whitewater Rafting Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of June 30, 2016. Thanks.
Rafting, Mountaineering, Skiing out of bounds and other sports are probably still safer than your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from any activity but to help you understand the risks and to study.
Red is a probable death due to medical issues unrelated to the activity
Blue is an employee fatality
Dark blue is a death of an employee while working
Date |
Activity |
State |
Location |
What |
Age |
Sex |
Location 2 |
Reference |
Ref 2 |
Company |
3/22 |
Cat Skiing |
OR |
Mt. Bailey |
Avalanche hit tree |
|
M |
|
|
||
5/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
WA |
Wenatchee River |
Raft Flipped |
53 |
M |
Dryden |
|
Orion River |
|
|
Whitewater Rafting |
ME |
Dead River |
Fell out |
52 |
M |
|
North Country Rivers |
||
5/22 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
61 |
F |
Parkdale |
Echo Canyon River Expeditions |
||
6/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Lowe River |
Fell out |
48 |
F |
|
|
|
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Roaring Fork |
Flip |
50 |
M |
Slaughterhouse section |
Aspen Whitewater Rafting |
||
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
69 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
67 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
6/22 |
Sea Kayaking |
ME |
Downeast Maine |
High Seas |
63 |
M |
Corea Harbor |
|
SeaScape Kayaks |
|
6/22 |
Sea Kayaking |
ME |
Downeast Maine |
High Seas |
|
M |
Corea Harbor |
|
SeaScape Kayaks |
|
6/24/16 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Green River |
|
63 |
F |
Disaster Falls |
Adrift Adventures |
||
7/2/16 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
51 |
F |
Zoom Flume |
River Runners |
If you would like a PDF of this chart please click here.
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
What 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
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
#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, Fatality, Avalanche, Cat Skiing, Oregon, Whitewater Rafting,
Summer 2016 Commercial Fatalities
Posted: June 29, 2016 Filed under: Whitewater Rafting | Tags: avalanche, Cat Skiing, fatality, Oregon Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of June 15, 2016. Thanks.
Rafting, Mountaineering, Skiing out of bounds and other sports are probably still safer than your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from any activity but to help you understand the risks and to study.
Red is a probable death due to medical issues unrelated to the activity
Blue is an employee fatality
Dark blue is a death of an employee while working
Date |
Activity |
State |
Location |
What |
Age |
Sex |
Location 2 |
Reference |
Ref 2 |
Company |
3/22 |
Cat Skiing |
OR |
Mt. Bailey |
Avalanche, hit tree |
|
M |
|
|
||
5/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
WA |
Wenatchee River |
Raft Flipped |
53 |
M |
Dryden |
|
Orion River |
|
|
Whitewater Rafting |
ME |
Dead River |
Fell out |
52 |
M |
|
North Country Rivers |
||
5/22 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Arkansas River |
Fell out |
61 |
F |
Parkdale |
Echo Canyon River Expeditions |
||
6/4 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Lowe River |
Fell out |
48 |
F |
|
|
|
|
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
CO |
Roaring Fork |
Flip |
50 |
M |
Slaughterhouse section |
Aspen Whitewater Rafting |
||
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
69 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
||
6/15 |
Whitewater Rafting |
AK |
Kongakut River |
Flip |
67 |
F |
|
Alaska Alpine Adventures |
If you would like a PDF of this chart please click here: 2016 Summer Commercial Fatalities
Our condolences go to the families of the deceased. Our thoughts extend to the families and staff at the areas who have to deal with these tragedies.
What do you think? Leave a comment.
If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn
Copyright 2016 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law
What 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
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
#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, Fatality, Avalanche, Cat Skiing, Oregon, Whitewater Rafting,
Final: 2015-2016 In bound ski/board fatalities
Posted: June 22, 2016 Filed under: Ski Area, Skiing / Snow Boarding | Tags: Aspen, Bear Valley, Blue Mountain, Blue Mountain Ski Area, Burke Mountain, Burke Mountain Ski Area, Cascade Mountain, Cascade Mountain Ski Hill, Chair Lift, fatality, Heavenly Mountain, Jackson Hole, Mount Snow, Mt. Waterman, Park City, Park City Mtn Resort, ski area, skiing, Snoqualmie Pass, Snowbasin, snowboarding, Solider Mountain, Squaw Valley resort, Steamboat Springs Ski Resort, Tubing, Vail, Whiteface, Winter Park Leave a commentThis list is not guaranteed to be accurate. The information is found from web searches and news dispatches. Those references are part of the chart. If you have a source for information on any fatality please leave a comment or contact me. Thank you.
If this information is incorrect or incomplete please let me know. This is up to date as of April 21, 2016. Thanks.
Skiing and Snowboarding are still safer than being in your kitchen or bathroom. This information is not to scare you away from skiing but to help you understand the risks.
Red type is natural or medical conditions that occurred inbounds on the slopes
Green Type is Fatalities while sledding at the Resort
Blue Type is a Lift Accidents
Purple Tye is Employee or Ski Patroller
2015 – 2016 Ski Season Fatalities
# |
Date |
State |
Resort |
Where |
Trail Difficulty |
How |
Cause |
Ski/ Board |
Age |
Sex |
Home town |
Helmet |
Reference |
Ref # 2 |
1 |
11/29/15 |
CA |
Bear Mountain |
|
|
she collided with a metal stairway |
|
Ski |
21 |
F |
Jackson Township CA |
|
||
2 |
12/7/15 |
WY |
Jackson Hole |
Moran Run |
Blue |
Hit tree |
|
Board |
23 |
F |
Boston, MA |
Y |
||
3 |
12/15/15 |
CO |
Steamboat |
|
|
fell, landing face down in the snow |
|
Ski |
70 |
M |
Louisville CO |
|
||
4 |
12/19/15 |
WA |
Snoqualmie Pass |
Silver Fir |
|
tree-well |
|
Ski |
50 |
M |
North Bend, WA |
|
||
5 |
12/22/15 |
WY |
Jackson Hole |
Sundance run |
|
found inverted in a tree well |
|
Ski |
25 |
F |
Jackson Hole, WY |
Y |
||
6 |
12/23/15 |
NY |
Whiteface Lake Placid |
Summit Express |
Blue |
fell and struck his head |
blunt impact to the head |
Board |
26 |
M |
Litiz, PA |
N |
|
|
7 |
12/23/15 |
CA |
Bear Valley |
|
|
|
|
Ski |
71 |
M |
|
|
||
8 |
1/6/16 |
CO |
Vail |
|
|
|
tree well |
Board |
25 |
M |
Avon, CO |
|
||
9 |
1/12/16 |
UT |
Park City |
|
Intermediate |
|
|
|
60 |
M |
|
|
|
|
10 |
1/20 |
CO |
Keystone |
Elk Run |
|
Hit a tree |
|
|
27 |
M |
Boulder, CO |
|
||
11 |
1/24/16 |
VT |
Mount Snow |
Ripcord |
Double Diamond |
Hit Tree |
Blunt Force Trauma |
Board |
57 |
M |
Simsbury CT |
Yes |
||
12 |
1/28/16 |
CO |
Winter Park |
|
|
|
|
Skier |
24 |
M |
Kalamazoo, MI |
|
|
|
13 |
1/30/16 |
ID |
Solider Mountain |
|
|
Hit building |
|
Ski |
14 |
F |
Twin Falls, ID |
Yes |
||
14 |
2/3/16 |
PA |
Blue Mountain Ski Area |
|
|
|
blunt-force trauma |
|
35 |
M |
Tacoma, WA |
|
||
15 |
2/6 |
CA |
Mt. Waterman |
|
|
struck a tree |
|
|
60 |
M |
Winnetka, CA |
|
||
16 |
2/6 |
WI |
Cascade Mountain Ski Hill |
|
|
struck a tree |
|
|
24 |
F |
Oconto Falls, WI |
No |
||
17 |
2/6 |
UT |
Park City Mtn Resort |
Tombstone |
|
collapsed |
|
|
67 |
M |
UT |
|
|
|
18 |
2/15/16 |
VT |
Burke Mountain Ski Area |
Big Dipper Trail |
|
collided with a tree |
|
|
58 |
M |
Watertown |
No |
||
19 |
2/16 |
NV |
Heavenly Mountain Resort |
Crossover and Comet ski runs |
|
striking a tree |
|
|
77 |
F |
Madison, WI |
|
||
20 |
2/22/16 |
UT |
Snowbasin Ski |
Janis’ trail |
|
crashing into a tree, |
|
|
56 |
M |
NJ |
N |
|
|
21 |
2/22/16 (2/15) |
CO |
Aspen |
|
Taking Lesson |
Fell down |
Head injury |
|
68 |
M |
CO, |
|
||
22 |
2/22/16 |
NY |
Gore Mountain Ski Center |
|
Double Black Diamond |
struck several trees |
|
|
65 |
M |
Minerva, NY |
Y |
||
23 |
2/25 |
CO |
Beaver Creek |
|
Intermediate |
Hit a sign attached to a wooden post between runs |
blunt force trauma to the chest |
|
39 |
M |
Knoxville, TN |
Y |
||
24 |
2/26 |
MI |
Crystal Mountain |
Cheers Race Course |
Intermediate |
Lost control & slid backward |
|
|
58 |
M |
Traverse City, MI |
Y |
||
25 |
2/27 |
PA |
Seven Springs |
Wagner Trail |
|
Skier v. Skier Collision |