At the end of May, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that ski areas (resorts) are not liable for injuries sustained in avalanches on property. Although it is difficult to imagine skiing and snowfall at this time of year, here are the top 7 things you need to know about the ruling.
1. Brief recap
Skiers now assume risk for “snow conditions as they exist or change,” aka avalanches, when skiing inside the boundaries of ski areas, aka resorts. Such weather related events are known as “inbounds avalanches.”
2. Were the resorts liable before?
Somewhat: the state’s Ski Safety Act listed skiers responsible for their encounters with these dangers: trees, cliffs, packed powder, ice, and others, including “snow conditions as they exist or change.” While it doesn’t specifically call out avalanches, it did put a $250,000 maximum reward on a loss of life suit.
3. So how is this different?
The plaintiff, widow Salydna Fleury, was seeking damages above the cap in a wrongful death suit. Her husband, skier Christopher Norris, was caught in an inbound avalanche at Winter Park (2012). The plaintiff alleged that the resort’s operator had ample knowledge of the dangerous weather conditions and failed to close the runs.
4. How often do avalanche related deaths occur?
About one in 100 million skiers visits, according to the National Ski Areas Association. To put that in perspective, in the past 15 years, 11 of the 448 avalanche related skier deaths were considered inbounds avalanches. The majority of them happened in the wild, if you will.
5. Was it a unanimous decision?
No, 5-2.Justice Monica Marquez dissented arguing that the average skier is unable to truly assess the risk of an avalanche:
“Under [the] holding, even a family of novice skiers traversing the mountain must be expected to look uphill, gauge the steepness of the slope, the quantity of fresh snow, and the multitude of factors that avalanche forecasters consider, and assume the risk of being swept away by an avalanche.
She added: “Winter Park effectively has no duty at all to warn skiers of avalanche risk or to close a dangerous run based on such risk.”
6. What else?
Also in the dissent, the Justices argued that Montana’s ski law was changed just last year to disqualify avalanches as “inherent dangers.” Whereas in Alaska, ski operators must adhere to their respective avalanche-related control plans, or risk being held liable for losses.
7. What did the majority of the high court conclude?
“The definition of ‘inherent dangers and risks of skiing’…specifically includes ‘snow conditions as they exist or may change.’ By its plain meaning, this phrase encompasses an inbounds avalanche, which is, at its core, the movement, or changing condition, of snow. As such [it] precludes skiers from recovering for injuries [including death] resulting from inbounds avalanches.” (via Justice Allison Eid).
It will be interesting to see if the decision affects seasonal skiers and the impact, if any, on local Colorado economies. The statistics imply that such chances are low, and I hope we see a rise in educational opportunities to help skiers better understand dangerous and evolving weather conditions. I’m also interested in watching how, if at all, this will affect other visitors who put themselves in dangerous weather conditions in designated ski areas.