This presentation looks at the different standards of care applied to collisions between people on a ski slope. Some states apply a negligence standard, some a reckless standard and some say the participants assume the risk of their injury in the sport.

1. Why is the Standard of
Care lower in Skiing
than in other Sports?

2. Sport and Recreation Law
Association Annual
conference 2016

3. Merry Moiseichik, R.Ed, J.D
University of Arkansas
Jim Moss, Esq
Recreation Law

4. Survey
• How many people in the room think you can sue if
you are knocked down by someone ice skating?
• How many people in the room think you can be
sued if you lose control roller blading and knock
someone down?
• How many people in the room believe that if they
are knocked down by someone skiing they can
sue the person who knocked them down?

5. Why is the Standard of Care lower in
Skiing than in other Sports?

6. Why are there different Standards of Care
There are at least three different
standards of care applied to
collisions between people on a ski
slope

7. All other Sports
You assume the risk of contact
– Whether Professional or Amateur
• Ice Skating
• Baseball
• Football
• Soccer

8. Yet in Skiing
In some states you can be
sued for being negligent
and in other states you
assume the risk of the
collision

9. Dillworth v. Gambardella, 970 F.2d
1113; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 17333i
• Collison occurred at bottom of run
• Upon observing a skier to his left coming
towards him out of control and at a fast rate
of speed, he attempted to turn out of the
approaching skier's way.
• No recovery collision was an inherent danger
of the sport
Vermont

10. Fernandez v. Beaton, 2009 Cal. App.
Unpub. LEXIS 4481
• On February 18, 2006, Beaton collided with
Fernandez in Heavenly's "Snow Beach" area
and injured her knee.
• Plaintiff assumed the risk of the collision
California

11. States that have a Ski Area
As of October 21, 2014
States with Skiing are Yellow

12. States with State Skier Safety Acts
As of October 21, 2014
States with Skier Statutes are Green

13. Standard of Care in Skier v. Skier Collisions
Inherent Risk of Skiing is defined by Statute
States were collisions are defined by statute
are in red

14. Standard of Care in Skier v. Skier Collisions
Collision is an Inherent Risk defined by Case Law
States were case law defines a collision as an
inherent risk of skiing are blue

15. Standard of Care in Skier v. Skier Collisions
Recklessness to prove a claim for a collision
States were the standard of care is
Recklessness are Burnt Orange

16. Inherent Risk According to Statute
…. collision with other skiers; and the failure of
skiers to ski within their own abilities
Alaska Ski Safety Act of 1994, Alaska Stat. §§
05.45.010 et seq.

17. New Hampshire
(h) collisions with other skiers;
(i) the failure of a skier to ski within that skier’s
ability;

18. Inherent Risk of Skiing by Case Law
Collision with another skier is a risk inherent in
skiing. Primary assumption of the risk precludes
liability for collisions between skiers who know and
appreciate the well-known and inherent risk of such
collisions. The district court lawfully concluded that
summary judgment in favor of respondent was
warranted, having found as a matter of law that
appellant assumed the risk of the skiing collision.
Peterson, v. Donahue, 733 N.W.2d 790; 2007 Minn.
App. LEXIS 91

19. California
Unless the defendants“"[C]onduct is totally outside the range
of ordinary activity involved in the sport (and thus any risks
resulting from that conduct are not inherent to the sport) if the
prohibition of that conduct would neither deter vigorous
participation in the sport nor otherwise fundamentally alter
the nature of the sport.
We conclude that defendant owed a duty of care not to
increase the risks of skiing beyond those inherent to the sport.
Campbell v. Derylo, 75 Cal. App. 4th 823; 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 519;
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 915; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8401; 99
Daily Journal DAR 10709

20. …a skier owes a duty to fellow skiers not to
injure them intentionally or to act recklessly,
but a skier may not sue another for simple
negligence
Cheong v. Antablin, 16 Cal. 4th 1063; 946 P.2d
817; 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 859; 1997 Cal. LEXIS 7662;
97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8851; 97 Daily Journal
DAR 14317

21. Conneticut
We conclude that in the case the appropriate
level of care demanded of coparticipants in the
sport of skiing is that of reasonableness.
Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc., et al.
269 Conn. 672; 849 A.2d 813; 2004 Conn. LEXIS
237

22. Illinois
Because downhill skiers do not voluntarily
submit to physical contact with other skiers
when they proceed onto the slopes, skiers were
found by the Novak court to owe one another a
duty of ordinary care.
Novak, 224 Ill. App. 3d at 321

23. Minnesota
Collision with another skier is a risk inherent in
skiing. Primary assumption of the risk precludes
liability for collisions between skiers who know and
appreciate the well-known and inherent risk of such
collisions. The district court lawfully concluded that
summary judgment in favor of respondent was
warranted, having found as a matter of law that
appellant assumed the risk of the skiing collision.
Peterson, v. Donahue, 733 N.W.2d 790; 2007 Minn.
App. LEXIS 91

24. Collision on a Ski Slope Standard of
Care
• It is an assumed risk of skiing
– By statute
• But only protects the ski area
– By case law
• It requires recklessness on the part of the
defendant – by case law
• It Requires Negligence on the part of the
defendant – by case law

25. Survey
• How many people in the room think you can sue if
you are knocked down by someone ice skating?
• How many people in the room think you can be
sued if you lose control roller blading and knock
someone down?
• How many people in the room believe that if they
are knocked down by someone skiing they can
sue the person who knocked them down?

26. THANK YOU