Callister v. Snowbird Corporation
2014 UT App 243
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Jan. 1, 2006, Callister was skiing near Snowbird’s tram tower #3, stopped outside the roped area, and was struck from behind by the tram or something hanging beneath it; there were no witnesses.
- Callister sued Snowbird in 2009 for negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, respondeat superior, and negligent supervision, alleging failure to rope off a larger area, warn with signs, and dig out snow around the tower.
- The case experienced extended periods of inactivity, two orders to show cause, and an amended case management order; discovery proceeded but Callister did not designate a liability expert by the court’s expert-disclosure deadline.
- Snowbird moved for summary judgment arguing Callister lacked an expert to establish the applicable standard of care; Callister argued expert testimony was unnecessary and, belatedly at the summary judgment hearing, invoked res ipsa loquitur.
- The district court held expert testimony was required (given industry-specific issues), denied Callister’s request to extend the expert-disclosure deadline based on the case history and delay, dismissed the claims with prejudice, and did not rule on res ipsa loquitur; Callister appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove Snowbird’s standard of care | Callister: common sense and the fact he was struck suffice; no expert needed | Snowbird: industry-specific standards (tram operation, signage, rope sizing) require expert proof | Court: Expert testimony required because the standard of care is beyond lay knowledge; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur could defeat summary judgment | Callister: doctrine creates inference of negligence sufficient to survive summary judgment | Snowbird: issue not preserved; not pleaded or timely argued | Court: Not preserved — raised too late and not in opposition papers; court declined to reach merits |
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to extend expert-disclosure deadline | Callister: court should have allowed extension to identify an expert once expert testimony deemed necessary | Snowbird: delay and prior procedural history justify denial | Court: No abuse of discretion; refusal reasonable given time lapse and prior orders to show cause |
| Whether dismissal as sanction under Rule 37 required a finding of willfulness or bad faith | Callister: dismissal improper without willfulness/bad faith | Snowbird: denial of extension and resulting dismissal were appropriate under case-management discretion | Court: Denial of extension is not the same as imposing Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions; no willfulness finding required to deny extension; decision within court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, Ltd., 301 P.3d 984 (Utah 2013) (summary judgment standard)
- Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy Dist., 321 P.3d 1049 (Utah 2013) (expert required where lay jurors cannot assess industry-specific standards)
- Berry v. Greater Park City Co., 171 P.3d 442 (Utah 2007) (distinguishing ordinary and gross negligence and need for expert proof in ski-related contexts)
- Bowman v. Kalm, 179 P.3d 754 (Utah 2008) (expert testimony generally required when standard of care is not within common knowledge)
- Pete v. Youngblood, 141 P.3d 629 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule that need not be pleaded, but adequate notice is required)
- Loos v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 108 P.2d 254 (Utah 1940) (plaintiff must give notice if relying on res ipsa in addition to specific negligence allegations)
- Townhomes at Pointe Meadows Owners Ass'n v. Pointe Meadows Townhomes, LLC, 329 P.3d 815 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (district court’s denial of deadline extensions reviewed for abuse of discretion)