150 F. Supp. 3d 1233
D. Colo.2015Background
- Hendrickson (plaintiff) and Doyle (defendant) collided while skiing on Aspen Snowmass’s Green Cabin trail; collision occurred near a lateral service road (Thornton Road) that creates a "roller"/blind zone.
- Doyle (uphill skier) performed a 360 jump over the roller and landed after being airborne; he says he was in control, jumped about three feet for one second, and did not see Hendrickson until midair.
- Hendrickson (downhill/traversing skier) alleges a significant collision causing head, neck, and shoulder injuries.
- Hendrickson moved for partial summary judgment on negligence/liability and to eliminate Doyle’s comparative negligence and assumption-of-risk defenses.
- Court declined to consider numerous exhibits and affidavits filed untimely/unauthenticated with the reply, but did not rule on admissibility at trial.
- Court denied the motion: genuine factual disputes exist about lookout, causation, and the circumstances of the jump; comparative-negligence/assumption defenses may go to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Duty and breach under Colorado Ski Safety Act | Hendrickson: collision by uphill skier establishes negligence/liability (move for partial SJ on duty/breach) | Doyle: Act’s duties and facts (blind zone, observation) mean he rebutted any presumption of fault | Denied — factual disputes (lookout, causation, jump mechanics) preclude summary judgment on duty/breach |
| 2. Whether Ski Safety Act creates negligence per se or a rebuttable presumption | Hendrickson: uphill skier collision = negligence per se or at least entitlement to summary judgment | Doyle: presumption is rebuttable; not per se negligence; statute does not prohibit collisions expressly | Court: Not negligence per se; Act creates a rebuttable presumption that uphill skier bears primary duty; defendant may rebut by preponderance |
| 3. Effect of traversing (Subsection (8)) | Hendrickson: (implicit) downhill/traversing skier bears usual duty; he moved for SJ eliminating defendant’s defenses | Doyle: traversing equals "re-entering" slope under §33-44-109(8), shifting duty to Hendrickson | Court rejected equivalence of traversing to re-entering; Subsection (8) does not automatically shift duty because traversing is common |
| 4. Comparative negligence / assumption of risk | Hendrickson: Doyle has no evidence to apportion fault or maintain assumption-of-risk defense | Doyle: Hendrickson lingered/traversed in blind zone and assumed/created a heightened risk | Denied — jury could find Hendrickson assumed or reasonably should have discovered the heightened risk; assumption of risk considered within comparative negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Pizza v. Wolf Creek Ski Dev. Corp., 711 P.2d 671 (Colo. 1985) (analysis of Ski Safety Act duties and presumption language)
- Ulissey v. Shvartsman, 61 F.3d 805 (10th Cir. 1995) (characterizes Colorado law as recognizing a rebuttable presumption of uphill-skier fault in collisions)
- People v. Hall, 999 P.2d 207 (Colo. 2000) (discusses Subsection (2) as establishing minimum standard of care and mentions rebuttable presumption)
- Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2007) (Ski Safety Act governs skiing-accident litigation; violations of enumerated duties can be negligence per se)
- Casebolt v. Cowan, 829 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1992) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, injury, proximate cause)