Practice Areas - Ski Accidents

The threshold question in a ski case is whether the injury or death was related to a risk that the skier assumed. The answer not only depends on the facts of the accident, but also on the applicable state law.

The Five Types of Ski Cases

• Collision Cases:

  Cases in which skiers collide and one skier sues the other.

• Lift Cases:

  Cases in which a skier is injured as a result of a faulty, defective, or improperly maintained lift.

• Fall Cases:

  Cases which involve skiers who have an accident while on the mountain and the fault of the injury lies with an improperly designed, maintained, marked or groomed slope.

• Instructor Cases:

  Cases in which a skier, under the supervision of an instructor, is led into unmanageable terrain and injures himself, or when a skier, under the supervision of an instructor, injures a third party and that injury is a result of inadequate supervision.

• Equipment Cases:

  Cases in which injury is caused by a skier's equipment—generally alpine release bindings.

Collision

In collision cases, the parties involved must exchange identification information. This office receives numerous calls each year from skiers who were injured by another's reckless skiing and that injured skier is unable to identify or name the reckless skier involved. Colorado law, and ski safety acts in most other states, require individuals involved in skier/skier collisions to stop at the scene, render aid and to give their name, local address, permanent address and identification.

Do not rely on ski patrol or ski area operators to obtain this information because, as a principle of law, they are under no duty to obtain the information. Although this absence of duty is under challenge, the courts are reluctant to impose an enforceable duty upon ski area operators to obtain identification information from reckless skiers.

Generally, ski patrol will compile a relatively comprehensive report concerning the nature, location, and causes of a skier/skier collision.

Colorado law presumes that the uphill skier is at fault in an accident, because the overtaking skier has the primary duty to avoid the skier below him or her. Thus, one of the key issues in any skier/skier case is who was the uphill or overtaking skier. The nature of the injury often gives substantial clues as to how the accident occurred, the speed at which the skiers were skiing, and the relative angles to each other. All skiers are under a general duty to ski cautiously, within their ability and to maintain control. The Colorado Ski Safety Statute provides that skiers are obliged to maintain a lookout. If one fails to ski in control or to maintain a lookout, the skier is negligent and responsible for the injuries and damages caused.

Back to Top

Lift Cases

Relatively few injuries are a consequence of faulty or poorly maintained ski lifts. Ski lifts, in the main, are relatively simple devices with established technology and a high degree of safety. However, given the large number of skiers annually using these lifts it is not surprising that after significant and repetitive cycles, design defects may catch up with the technology. Colorado law provides that ski area operators are obliged to operate their lifts in accord with the highest degree of care commensurate with the safety of the passengers. The issues of liability in ski lift cases, when the injury occurs after loading and before unloading, generally concern who is responsible—the ski area operator for poor maintenance or an engineering, design or manufacturing firm for a defect.

Over 90% of all lift cases arise while the skier is either loading or unloading and are a consequence of either Skier error or improper operation rather than a design defect. The liability question is generally settled after the balancing the operator's duty to exercise the highest degree of care against the skier/ passenger duty to pay attention, have the requisite skills to board the lift, and to heed all posted information and instructions. Unloading accidents can be the result of an operator's negligence caused by an inadequate ramp and snow maintenance and/or the failure to stop the lift to allow known inexperienced skiers to exit safely.

Back to Top

Fall Cases

Prior to July 1, 1990, ski area operators were obliged not only to operate their ski areas in compliance with the specific requirements of the Ski Safety Statute (regarding the marking of slopes, the padding and marking of man made objects, and posting of specific warnings) but also to exercise a reasonable duty of care in the design, maintenance and operation of their slopes. The 1989-90 General Assembly passed amendments to the Ski Safety Act. These amendments provided that no skier could recover for injuries resulting from the inherent dangers of skiing; and, limiting damages recoverable from a ski area operator for cases except for lift accidents. In 1995, the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted these amendments in Graven v. Vail Associates, Inc. 909 P. 2d 514 (Colo. 1995). The Colorado Supreme Court adopted a narrow construction of the inherent danger provisions of the Colorado Ski Act. C.R.S. §33-44-101 et seq. This precedent will allow some skiers, who are injured while skiing, to advance a claim for injuries against a ski area operator if the injury results not from a ski area operator's breach of a specific duty set out in the Ski Act, but, rather from a danger or risk which is found to be not "integral" to the sport. Followed: Dovey et al v. Victoria Breckenridge et al., 95 CV 1153, District Court, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado (Order denying Motion to Dismiss, 1/3/96).

Instructor Cases

Ski instructors are under a general duty to exercise due care when teaching. This generally means that ski instructors should not encourage individuals to take blind jumps and instructors should refrain from leading classes into terrain beyond their ability.

Back to Top

Equipment Cases

Equipment cases generally concern the failure of alpine bindings to release under circumstances in which the injured person would have expected them to have opened and prevented injury. Liability in these cases will hinge on whether the ski bindings were properly set and/or whether the bindings, if set correctly, were functioning properly.

The second issue of liability in these cases concerns whether the fall which injured the person was of the nature and type which exerted forces through the binding which, if set and operating properly, should have opened the binding. A number of injuries exist which are currently not altogether preventable even by properly set and operating bindings.

For in-depth information on ski law and ski cases, visit www.skisafety.com , or call 800.221.5526 to speak to an experienced attorney.