2024 CO 30
Colo.2024Background
- Minor Annalea “Annie” Miller suffered catastrophic injuries and became a quadriplegic after falling from a chair lift at Crested Butte Mountain Resort due to an alleged absence of a lift operator intervening.
- Annie’s father, Michael Miller, had purchased ski passes online and signed release and waiver agreements on Annie's behalf, purporting to waive claims for negligence—including statutory duties under the Ski Safety Act of 1979 (SSA) and Passenger Tramway Safety Act (PTSA).
- Miller sued Crested Butte, asserting (1) negligence-highest duty of care, (2) negligence per se (based on violation of SSA/PTSA/regulations), and (3) gross negligence.
- The district court dismissed the first two claims, holding the releases were enforceable and that no viable negligence per se claim was stated.
- The Colorado Supreme Court took up the case to resolve whether such private waivers could bar negligence per se claims premised on statutory violations and whether the district court properly applied enforceability factors to the waivers for the common law claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a ski area operator contractually absolve itself from statutory duties under SSA/PTSA via waivers? | Such waivers cannot discharge statutory obligations imposed for public safety. | Statutory negligence claims are covered by parental waivers; statute permits parents to release negligence claims. | No, waivers cannot absolve operators of statutory/regulatory liability; such claims must proceed. |
| Did Miller state a plausible claim for negligence per se based on violation of ski lift safety regulations? | Yes; the regulations set specific, heightened duties beyond mere reasonable care, and their violation constitutes negligence per se. | No; the rules just require reasonable care and do not mandate specific actions, so claim fails for lack of a particular statutory duty. | Yes, Miller alleged breach of specific, actionable duties under the regulations, thus stated a valid negligence per se claim. |
| Are the signed release agreements enforceable as to the common law negligence claim? | Releases are unenforceable, especially for a minor, and not fairly or clearly entered into given specific statutory risks. | Releases are routine, voluntary, and clearly conveyed the risks and coverage (including negligence relating to lifts). | Yes, the releases were enforceable and bar the negligence-highest duty of care claim under Jones factors. |
| Does section 13-22-107(3) (parental injury waivers) supersede ski safety statutory claims? | No, it does not wash away specific statutory and regulatory duties protecting the public. | Yes, the statute permits parents to waive all negligence claims, including those based on statutory duty. | No, the more specific SSA/PTSA overrides general statute; statutory/regulatory claims cannot be waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370 (Colo. 1981) (establishes four-factor test for enforceability of exculpatory agreements)
- Peterman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 487 (Colo. 1998) (parties cannot abrogate statutory requirements by private contract)
- Gonzales v. Indus. Comm’n, 740 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1987) (private agreement cannot render statutory protections ineffectual)
- Bayern v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998) (SSA/PTSA violations constitute negligence per se)
- Heil Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Simkin, 784 P.2d 781 (Colo. 1989) (exculpatory agreements in voluntary recreational contexts are scrutinized for fairness but not automatically void)