Kisiel, W. v. Wiszynski, Z., Kisiel, W. v. Wiszynski, Z. No. 1605 MDA 2016

Collision on a ski slope in Warrington Township, York County between skiers Witold Kisiel (plaintiff) and Zbigniew Wiszynski (defendant).
Kisiel filed a negligence complaint on May 22, 2014 claiming Wiszynski, who agreed to follow him down the slope, lost control and struck him from behind.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on June 30, 2016; trial court granted motion on August 19, 2016 finding the Skier’s Responsibility Act applicable.
Kisiel appealed pro se, but his appellate brief failed to comply with multiple Pa. R.A.P. requirements; the Superior Court nevertheless addressed the substantive claim.
Central legal question: whether the risk of being struck from behind by a known skier after an agreement to follow is an ‘‘inherent risk’’ under the Skier’s Responsibility Act, barring negligence recovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kisiel was barred from recovery by the Skier’s Responsibility Act/assumption of risk for a rear-end collision while downhill skiing	Kisiel: the risk of being hit from behind by a known skier who agreed to follow is not an inherent risk of downhill skiing and thus not assumed	Wiszynski: collision risk is an inherent, assumed risk of downhill skiing and therefore no duty was owed	Court held: collision with another skier is an inherent risk; Kisiel assumed that risk and cannot recover; summary judgment for Wiszynski affirmed

Bell v. Dean, 5 A.3d 268 (Pa. Super. 2010) (interprets Skier’s Responsibility Act and recognizes collision with another skier as an inherent, assumed risk)
Reinoso v. Heritage Warminster SPE LLC, 108 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2014) (summarizes standard of review for summary judgment)
Mull v. Ickes, 994 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Super. 2010) (summary judgment standard guidance)
Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc., 762 A.2d 339 (Pa. 2000) (framework for applying Skier’s Responsibility Act and identifying ‘‘inherent risks’’ of downhill skiing)