Judges will not reconsider the property’s liability claim for a skier’s fatal accident

A divided Michigan Supreme Court has denied leave to appeal a premises liability case brought by the estate of a skier who allegedly suffered fatal injuries when he collided with a snowmaking machine at a ski resort.

The 6-1 decision leaves in place a published Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that the Ski Area Safety Act (SASA) overrides the property’s claim. Judge Richard H. Bernstein would have allowed the appeal.

The case – Round against Trinidad Resort & Club LLC (MiLW 07-107478) – had made two trips to the Court of Appeal. After the estate requested permission to appeal to the state Supreme Court, the justices remanded the case “to consider whether plaintiff has asserted any common law claims in her complaint” and, if so, whether the decree SASA has revoked these common law rights.

In an opinion issued in December 2023, Judge Mark J. Cavanagh reiterated the Court of Appeals’ 2022 opinion, saying: “A ski resort operator is not an absolute insurer of safety and is not legally tasked with the impossible task of crashing its entire facility.” .’ prove.’ Accordingly, this claim is set aside by SASA to the extent that the plaintiff has asserted a claim for damages for the injuries sustained by her deceased when he collided with off-piste snowmaking equipment while participating in a nighttime ski event.”

Evening ski event

Charles Round attended the Tannenbaum Blitzen parade at Schuss Mountain, which was owned and operated by defendant. At the nighttime event, volunteer skiers ski down an unlit slope with lit torches. When they reach the bottom of the hill, they light the resort’s Christmas tree.

As Charles led the parade of skiers—as he had done for years—he turned left and skied past the edge of the unlit piste. There was a ski lift at the edge of the ski slope; Four permanent snowmaking systems were installed at various points on the hill below the lift.

Charles crossed this area and collided with a snow machine. He suffered serious injuries that ultimately ended in death.

Charles’ wife, Cheryle, filed a negligence claim against the ski resort, claiming it had failed to comply with the obligations imposed by the SASA.

She argued, in part, that the ski area did not ensure that the snowmaking facility was adequately marked or clearly visible to skiers, and that it did not mark the snowmaking facility with a visible sign or other warning device.

The resort asserted affirmative defenses, including that it was immune and that Cheryle’s claim was rejected by SASA. The resort argued in relevant part that it was not required under the SASA to light, mark or pad the snowmaking machine because it was located away from the ski slope.

The Antrim County Circuit Court denied the defendant ski resort’s motion, saying it was a jury question whether the snowmaking system was on the ski slope.

Anamnesis

An appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the lawsuit in an unpublished 2022 decision issuing an order dismissing the case (Round against Trinidad Resort & Club LLC; MiLW 08-105931, 9 pages).

The snowmaking systems were not on a ski slope, the judges said. Therefore, the resort was not required to mark this equipment with a warning device and was not in breach of SASA.

Cheryle applied to the Supreme Court for permission. She argued in part that the Court of Appeal “ignored her common law claims and implicitly concluded that SASA preempted the common law claims.”

The judges did not address any of her claims and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal to consider whether Cheryle asserted common law claims and, if so, whether SASA overturned them.

SASA quashes claim

“Although ski resort operators may not be completely immune from any liability that may arise from the operation of their business, we conclude that SASA has waived liability claims against ski resort operators arising from injuries suffered by skiers while practicing their sport. “Skiing,” Cavanagh wrote. “In other words, SASA excludes such common law negligence claims. This conclusion is particularly applicable in this case, where the plaintiff’s deceased injuries were due to the obvious and necessary dangers inherent in the sport of skiing.”

Case law, laws and history make it clear that the only basis for the liability of ski area operators lies in the SASA.

“As our Supreme Court also stated Anderson [v Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc]“The legislature has indicated that matters of this nature should be removed from the common law domain because SASA has pre-empted the common law in this regard,” Cavanagh pointed out. “In this way, the legislature has legally limited the liability of ski area operators by balancing the risks assumed by the skier with the responsibilities of the ski area operator to promote the safety of skiers.”

In this case, Cheryle claimed that Charles encountered a snow machine and incorrect lighting conditions while skiing at a nighttime event at the resort.

But Cavanagh said: “SASA was enacted to preclude exactly this type of lawsuit,” pointing out that skiers who ski at night accept the risks associated with that activity, including the fact that lighting conditions may not be there are ideal.

“[A]As we discussed in our previous opinion, the plaintiff’s decedent confronted the snowmaking machine in question while skiing far off the slopes. That means the snowmaking machine was not on the ski slope, “on the path or route that was expected to be used for the descent of Kingdom Come,” the judge said. “If a skier intentionally or accidentally leaves the trail or route intended for skiing on a particular hill, that skier assumes the associated risks, including snowmaking equipment, ski lift structures and other potential hazards.” In these circumstances, the risk of a collision inherent in skiing is obvious and necessary.”

The case is remanded to Antrim County for an order granting the ski area’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing this case.

Justices Kristina Robinson Garrett and Christopher P. Yates joined Cavanagh’s opinion.