Connecticut Appellate Court Finds Ski Sundown Not Liable for Skier's Paralysis

 

 (photo credit: Ski Sundown)

A Connecticut Appellate Court has upheld a jury's finding of no liability for Ski Sundown following a 2007 terrain park accident that left a boy paralyzed.

According to the opinion, then-fifteen year old James Malaguit was skiing at Ski Sundown in New Hartford, Connecticut on February 16, 2007 when he skied off a jump in the resort's terrain park. He landed in a manner which left him a quadriplegic. Malaguit sued the resort alleging negligence. 

Connecticut, like most states with ski resorts, has a ski act (Con. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 29-201 et seq.) which imposes duties on both skiers and resorts. However, practically speaking, the  act is most often applied as a bar to recovery for those injured while skiing. The statute  provides that skiers are deemed to have assumed the inherent risks of skiing when they participate in the sport. (§ 29-212). Generally, resorts can use the statute as a defense to claims of negligence so long as the injury arose from an "inherent risk of skiing," as state courts have defined the term. Consequently, plaintiffs almost always allege that the manner in which they were injured was somehow unique and thus not one of those inherent risks they are deemed to assume.

This case is no different. Unsurprisingly, Malaguit claimed that Ski Sundown was, "negligent by building and maintaining a snow jump, which created a hazard not inherent in the sport of skiing." Malaguit argued that, "as a matter of law, a snow jump is not a hazard inherent in the sport of skiing." The judge disagreed and allowed the issue of whether a terrain park feature was an inherent risk to go to the jury. At trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of the resort.

Malaguit appealed on technical grounds and the court denied his appeal. He may attempt to petition the Connecticut Supreme Court for review.

Of course, it goes without saying that Malaguit's injuries are tremendously sad and regrettable. However, as skiers we must recognize that we assume a high degree of risk when we decide to slap two wooden planks on our feet and slide down a frozen hillside. If we are injured, we likely have only a very limited possibility of recourse. However, if not for ski statutes, whose application to deny sympathetic plaintiffs recovery for horrific injuries seems cold, skiing would simply be too risky for insurers to underwrite. Without insurance, the sport would cease to exist. And that's an outcome no one wants.

********************************* 

Additional Stories on Ski, Esq.