When a resort's own choices may cause an injury

By Nuttall Brown & Coutts

When can a Utah ski resort be responsible for an injury?

Only in limited situations. The Act bars claims for inherent risks of skiing. A danger is not always inherent just because it seems to fit the list. It depends on the facts.

What is not a claim

It helps to start with what the law clearly covers. The Act lists changing weather; snow and ice conditions, including machine-made snow; bare spots, rocks, stumps, trees and cliffs; variations in terrain, whether natural or from slope design, snowmaking or grooming; terrain parks and features; impact with lift towers, signs, posts, fences and hydrants; collisions with other skiers; competitions; and skiing beyond your ability. A skier cannot recover from a ski area operator for injury from these inherent risks.

That list is long on purpose. The Legislature wanted to make clear that ski areas are not insurers of the sport. The Act bars claims against the operator for injuries caused by inherent risks. But a danger that seems to fit the list is not always an inherent risk. It depends on the facts.

What may be different

Utah courts have said that an inherent risk is a danger that is an integral part of the sport. Courts have also recognized that some dangers are not inherent just because they happen at a ski area. Very generally, the question is whether a danger is one skiers accept as part of skiing, or one the ski area could have prevented with reasonable care without changing the sport. The answer depends heavily on the facts and is often disputed. If construction or a building defect may be involved, see Utah ski law.

Situations where this question can come up include:

• Equipment the resort left on a run, such as a snowmobile or tool, without warning.
• A hazard the resort created and knew about but did not mark, close or fix, outside the conditions listed in the Act.
• Problems in how a lift was operated or how staff responded to someone in trouble.
• Unsafe conditions in buildings, parking lots, walkways, shuttles and stairs, which are not skiing at all.

We list these as examples of questions, not as promises. A resort will often argue that the danger was inherent, and Utah law gives it strong protection.

Grooming and snowmaking

The Act lists terrain variations from grooming and snowmaking as inherent risks. Grooming machines and snowmaking equipment themselves, such as hoses and guns, can raise more specific questions, especially if they were in an unexpected place without warning. Hydrants and water pipes are listed as inherent risks.

Trail boards and signs

The Act requires ski area operators to post trail boards listing the inherent risks and the limits on their liability. Signs and closures also matter. Whether a run was open or closed, and how it was marked, can affect a case.

Slips and falls off the slopes

Injuries in a lodge, rental shop, restaurant, parking area or shuttle are usually ordinary premises or vehicle cases, not ski cases. Icy walkways and stairs can be a real problem at ski areas. Different rules apply, and the Act may not be relevant at all.

A danger that fits the Act's list is not automatically inherent, but the Act gives resorts strong protection. Whether something else was involved depends on the facts. A lawyer can review them with you.

Sources

• Utah Inherent Risks of Skiing Act, official text (le.utah.gov) (opens in new tab)