Skiing Injuries in California

With fall coming to an end, and winter just around the corner, ski slopes throughout California are about to get busy.In the past, friends of mine have asked me questions about injuries on ski slopes.  Some resorts require skiers to sign a liability release.  But, assuming no release was required, how are skiing injuries dealt with in California?The answer, as explained in the recent California Court of Appeal case of Martine v. Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership might shed light on an issue that troubles way too many first year law students in Torts class: Primary Assumption of the Risk.Teresa Martine was skiing at the Heavenly Valley resort in 2009, when she suffered a knee injury.  She summoned the volunteer ski patrol to transport her down the slope in a sled attached to a snowmobile.  On the way down, the snowmobile hit a tree, possibly because a snowboarder cut out in front of its path. Martine suffered further injuries to her head in the collision.Martine sued the resort, arguing that the 1)  individual who transported her down the mountain was negligent. She also argued that 2) the resort operated as a common carrier, and thus should be held to the higher duty of care in these types of cases.In analyzing her first argument, the Court noted that skiing is a recreational sports activity. In this setting, "conditions or conduct that otherwise might be viewed as dangerous often are an integral part of the sport itself."  This is known as primary assumption of the risk.The Court further noted: "The risks inherent in snow skiing have been well catalogued and recognized by the courts, including injuries from variations in terrain, surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions, moguls, bare spots, rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris, and collisions with other skiers, ski lift towers, and other properly marked or plainly visible objects and equipment" (citing Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1202).Based on this, the Court concluded that Martine's knee injury was a foreseeable consequence of engaging in the recreational activity of skiing. Suffering further injuries while being transported was also a foreseeable consequence of skiing. Thus, her negligence claims were barred under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine.The Court also rejected her second argument that the ski resort operated as a common carrier in transporting her down the mountain.As we've discussed here, and here, to qualify as a common carrier, the Court engages in a three-pronged analysis to decide whether the transportation services qualify as a "common carrier".

1. Does the defendant maintain a business for transporting injured patrons? The answer in this case was no.
2. Does the defendant advertise for such transporting services? No again.
3. Does the defendant charge a fee for the transporting services? No. The ski patrol driver was a volunteer.

While Martine's case was dismissed, it does shed light on some of the various interesting issues that pertain to California skiers and skiing injuries.For questions about your case, the Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.