136 Conn. App. 381
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Malaguit, then a 15-year-old, was injured while skiing at Ski Sundown during a terrain park jump.
- Plaintiff sued Ski Sundown in 2008 alleging negligence in constructing/maintaining the snow jump.
- Ski Sundown asserted § 29-212 (skiing-inherent risk) as a complete bar and their comparative negligence defense.
- Court charged § 29-212 despite plaintiff’s argument that a snow jump isn’t a hazard inherent in skiing.
- Plaintiff requested an adverse spoliation instruction and exclusion of exculpatory language in defendant documents; court denied.
- Jury returned a verdict for defendant; plaintiff moved to set aside verdict, which the trial court denied; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 29-212 charge was proper | Malaguit argues § 29-212 should not apply to a snow jump | Sundown contends the statute is applicable to inherent hazards in skiing | Yes; court properly instructed on § 29-212 as a separate defense |
| Whether the court should have given legislative history for § 29-212 | Malaguit sought legislative history to aid application | Sundown argued history was unnecessary for the instruction | No; not reversible error given proper framing of negligence vs. statute |
| Whether spoliation of evidence instruction was required | Malaguit claimed adverse inference on lost pictures/videos of the jump | Sundown argued evidence not essential and not controlled by defendant | No; court correctly declined spoliation instruction |
| Whether to disregard exculpatory language in documents provided by defendant | Malaguit urged public policy to disregard exculpatory language | Sundown argued language valid and not exculpatory on negligence | No; instruction not warranted as to public policy |
| Whether general verdict precludes review given multiple negligent theories | Monterose-like claim that errors taint pathway to verdict | General verdict rule applies; no tainted route due to separate defenses | Yes; general verdict rule applies; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tetreault v. Eslick, 271 Conn. 466 (2004) (five-category general verdict rule framework)
- Crews v. Pudlinski, 129 Conn.App. 807 (2011) (general verdict rule applicability on appeal)
- Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo, 50 Conn.App. 767 (1998) (interrogatories reveal basis for verdict when present)
- Gajewski v. Pavelo, 32 Conn. App. 373 (1993) (functional equivalence of not objecting to deliberation)
- Monterose v. Cross, 60 Conn.App. 655 (2000) (untainted route exception to general verdict under improper standard of care)
- Ziman v. Whitley, 110 Conn. 108 (1929) (interrogatories to address multiple negligence specifications)