According to a report by CBS 4 News in Denver, the family of a man killed in an in-bounds avalanche at Winter Park (CO) has filed suit against the resort.
In-bounds avalanches are quite rare at US ski areas. While slides in the sidecountry and backcountry routinely and regrettably claim lives each winter, exceedingly few recreational skiers are killed by in-bounds avalanches. According to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC), since 1991 only one other skier perished while skiing clearly open terrain within a Colorado ski resort's boundaries. The lion's share of the credit for the state's remarkable in-bounds avalanche safety record goes to Colorado's tireless ski patrollers. Their blasting, testing, and knowledge keeps skiers safe. Unfortunately, avalanche safety is not an exact science.
According to published reports, on January 22, 2012, Christopher Norris of Evergreen, CO was skiing in bounds at the Winter Park ski resort, when his day took a tragic turn. The CAIC summary of the accident states that:
We believe Skier 1 [Norris] followed a traverse into the Trestle Trees. The area had seen some ski traffic, including ski patrollers. Skier 1 cut along low angel [sic] terrain below a short, very steep rock outcrop. He probably triggered the avalanche from below. Slight terrain features funneled the majority of the avalanche towards Skier 1. The avalanche caught Skier 1 from the side and behind, and knocked him over. He was fully buried two to three feet deep, face downhill, with one had reaching towards the surface.
The accident highlights the importance of skiing in a group. Had Norris been skiing with several other skiers, his chances of surviving such a small slide would have been much improved.
Unfortunately for Norris' family, Colorado law makes it difficult to pursue a negligence claim against a ski resort. The Colorado Ski Safety Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-109 et seq.) limits the liability of ski resort operators and generally permits recovery only where the resort has violated the Act. The Act further provides, in pertinent part, that, "no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing." (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-113). Norris' family will have to demonstrate that an in-bounds avalanche is not an "inherent danger" or "risk of skiing."
A brief search of Colorado caselaw revealed only one case, Mannhard v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., 682 P.2d 64 (Colo.App.1983) cert. denied (1984), in which a Colorado court interpreted the "inherent dangers and risks of skiing" language in the context of avalanches. In Mannhard a skier was killed in an avalanche caused by him and two companions while skiing out-of-bounds at Loveland Basin Ski Area. The court, in finding no liability for the resort, held that, "[t]he snow conditions which constituted the avalanche danger were a natural occurrence and were not caused by, nor did they result from, operator's activities." However, the court emphasized that, "there was no evidence that the danger was increased by anything done or not done by the operator" and that there existed no "Colorado case law in which the 'inherently dangerous' classification has been applied to passive activities or inaction pertaining to already existing dangerous natural conditions."
The facts in the the case at bar are quite different. In Mannhard, the avalanche occurred out-of-bounds and the resort was not controlling the area. The "already existing dangerous natural conditions" in Mannhard were not within Loveland's control. In this case, however, the avalanche was in-bounds. A court could well find that Winter Park's role was not passive and that the conditions were not "natural," but rather created, at least in part, by Winter Park's management of the area.
If successful, the Norris' damages are capped at $250,000 by the Ski Safety Act, but would be adjusted upwards slightly to account for inflation.
According to published reports, on January 22, 2012, Christopher Norris of Evergreen, CO was skiing in bounds at the Winter Park ski resort, when his day took a tragic turn. The CAIC summary of the accident states that:
We believe Skier 1 [Norris] followed a traverse into the Trestle Trees. The area had seen some ski traffic, including ski patrollers. Skier 1 cut along low angel [sic] terrain below a short, very steep rock outcrop. He probably triggered the avalanche from below. Slight terrain features funneled the majority of the avalanche towards Skier 1. The avalanche caught Skier 1 from the side and behind, and knocked him over. He was fully buried two to three feet deep, face downhill, with one had reaching towards the surface.
The accident highlights the importance of skiing in a group. Had Norris been skiing with several other skiers, his chances of surviving such a small slide would have been much improved.
Unfortunately for Norris' family, Colorado law makes it difficult to pursue a negligence claim against a ski resort. The Colorado Ski Safety Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-109 et seq.) limits the liability of ski resort operators and generally permits recovery only where the resort has violated the Act. The Act further provides, in pertinent part, that, "no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing." (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-44-113). Norris' family will have to demonstrate that an in-bounds avalanche is not an "inherent danger" or "risk of skiing."
A brief search of Colorado caselaw revealed only one case, Mannhard v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., 682 P.2d 64 (Colo.App.1983) cert. denied (1984), in which a Colorado court interpreted the "inherent dangers and risks of skiing" language in the context of avalanches. In Mannhard a skier was killed in an avalanche caused by him and two companions while skiing out-of-bounds at Loveland Basin Ski Area. The court, in finding no liability for the resort, held that, "[t]he snow conditions which constituted the avalanche danger were a natural occurrence and were not caused by, nor did they result from, operator's activities." However, the court emphasized that, "there was no evidence that the danger was increased by anything done or not done by the operator" and that there existed no "Colorado case law in which the 'inherently dangerous' classification has been applied to passive activities or inaction pertaining to already existing dangerous natural conditions."
The facts in the the case at bar are quite different. In Mannhard, the avalanche occurred out-of-bounds and the resort was not controlling the area. The "already existing dangerous natural conditions" in Mannhard were not within Loveland's control. In this case, however, the avalanche was in-bounds. A court could well find that Winter Park's role was not passive and that the conditions were not "natural," but rather created, at least in part, by Winter Park's management of the area.
If successful, the Norris' damages are capped at $250,000 by the Ski Safety Act, but would be adjusted upwards slightly to account for inflation.
*********************************
No comments:
Post a Comment