2016 CO 41
Colo.2016Background
- Christopher Norris was killed by an in-bounds avalanche on the Trestle Trees run at Winter Park on Jan. 22, 2012; Colorado Avalanche Information Center had issued warnings of unstable snow and heavy storms.
- Winter Park knew of unstable snow and avalanche susceptibility for that area but did not close the run or post warnings.
- Plaintiff Fleury sued Winter Park for negligence and wrongful death, alleging the resort knew of the avalanche risk but failed to warn or close the area.
- Winter Park moved for a determination of law and judgment on the pleadings, arguing the Ski Safety Act (SSA) bars suits for injuries caused by "inherent dangers and risks of skiing," which it asserted includes in-bounds avalanches.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint; the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an in-bounds avalanche is an "inherent danger[] and risk[] of skiing" under the SSA | Fleury: Avalanches are events, not a "snow condition," and are not expressly listed; immunity should be narrowly construed so avalanches are not covered. | Winter Park: The SSA lists "snow conditions as they exist or may change," which encompasses movement of snow (avalanches); the word "including" indicates examples and does not limit coverage. | The Court held that "snow conditions as they exist or may change" encompasses in-bounds avalanches, so the SSA precludes suits for injuries resulting from such avalanches. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melat, Pressman & Higbie, L.L.P. v. Hannon Law Firm, L.L.C., 287 P.3d 842 (Colo. 2012) (pleading-stage factual allegations accepted as true)
- Hunsaker v. People, 351 P.3d 388 (Colo. 2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2007) ("injury" construed to include death under SSA)
- Ryals v. St. Mary-Corwin Reg'l Med. Ctr., 10 P.3d 654 (Colo. 2000) (statute that modifies common-law rights must do so expressly or by clear implication)
- Lunsford v. W. States Life Ins. Co., 908 P.2d 79 (Colo. 1995) (inclusion of specific language implies exclusion of other items)