Cunningham v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp.
673 F. App'x 841
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mrs. Lindy Cunningham rented skis from Jackson Hole Mountain Resort (JHMR) in January 2013 and signed a rental agreement containing a broad release that expressly stated it included negligence claims.
- While skiing, Mrs. Cunningham fell and collided with a man-made trail sign, suffering catastrophic spinal injuries; Mr. Cunningham filmed the run with a helmet-mounted camera.
- The Cunninghams sued JHMR for negligence, premises liability, negligent training/supervision, and loss of consortium; JHMR moved for summary judgment based on the release.
- The district court granted summary judgment for JHMR, finding the release valid, unambiguous, and not negated by willful or wanton misconduct; the Cunninghams appealed.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit limited review to whether the release clearly and unambiguously abrogated negligence claims (the only issue preserved), and whether JHMR engaged in willful and wanton misconduct.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed: the release unambiguously barred negligence claims arising from use of JHMR facilities (including collisions with man-made objects) and no reasonable jury could find willful or wanton conduct by JHMR in placing the sign.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability/scope of release | Release is ambiguous, hidden, internally conflicted, or limited to equipment-related or "inherent hazards" only | Release is clear, broadly waives all claims arising directly or indirectly from use of JHMR facilities and expressly includes negligence | Release is clear and unambiguous; it bars the Cunninghams’ negligence-based claims |
| Conspicuousness / presentation | Release was inconspicuous and presented in a rental form, so signor wouldn’t understand scope | Release occupies bulk of one-page form, labeled prominently, and includes emphasized "INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE" language | No conspicuousness requirement under Wyoming law here; release was sufficiently conspicuous |
| Overbreadth / public policy (including differential treatment of renters) | Release is overbroad (covers all activities, facilities, times) and unfairly targets renters | Broad language is facially clear; no established Wyoming public policy forbids such releases; JHMR uses similar releases for pass holders | Broad scope is not ambiguous and does not violate settled public policy; enforceable against renter |
| Willful and wanton misconduct exception | JHMR’s placement/construction of the sign was reckless or worse and thus voids the release | Sign had been in same place/form ~30 years with no prior incidents; expert criticisms at most show negligence, not willful/wanton conduct | No evidence supporting willful or wanton conduct; at best negligence; release remains enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Schutkowski v. Carey, 725 P.2d 1057 (Wyo. 1986) (sets four-factor test and enforces exculpatory clauses for hazardous recreational activities absent willful misconduct)
- Milligan v. Big Valley Corp., 754 P.2d 1063 (Wyo. 1988) (confirms releases can bar negligence claims and discusses public-duty/essential-service considerations)
- Boehm v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 748 P.2d 704 (Wyo. 1987) (agrees that agreements meeting factors prevent negligence claims)
- Massengill v. S.M.A.R.T. Sports Med. Clinic, P.C., 996 P.2d 1132 (Wyo. 2000) (contract interpretation principles; interpret release as whole)
- Hannifan v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Cheyenne, 185 P.3d 679 (Wyo. 2008) (defines willful and wanton misconduct standard)