Mankowski, W. v. Seven Springs
Mankowski, W. v. Seven Springs No. 1653 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- On Feb. 28, 2015, Wayne Mankowski fell from a Seven Springs chairlift while helping his son board; he landed on an unprotected bolt at the lift tower and was injured.
- Plaintiffs (Wayne and Tracie Mankowski) sued Seven Springs for negligence on Feb. 4, 2016.
- Seven Springs filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer arguing the claim is barred by the Skiers’ Responsibility Act (assumption/no-duty rule).
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint on Sept. 29, 2016. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed de novo under the standard for preliminary objections (accepting well-pled facts) and focused on whether the injury arose from a risk inherent in downhill skiing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Skiers’ Responsibility Act bars the claim | Mankowski: injury resulted from a non-inherent, foreseeable danger (unprotected bolt); not barred | Seven Springs: the injury (falling from chairlift) is an inherent skiing risk covered by the Act | Court: barred by the Act because falling from a chairlift is an inherent risk |
| Whether Chepkevich is distinguishable because of the bolt | Mankowski: Chepkevich didn’t involve striking an unprotected bolt; distinguishes facts | Seven Springs: Chepkevich holds that boarding/riding chairlifts (and falling from them) are inherent risks regardless of what is struck | Court: Chepkevich controls; identity of surface struck is irrelevant to inherent-risk analysis |
| Whether Crews allows recovery by treating removable hazards as non-inherent | Mankowski: hazard (bolt) could be removed/protected, like Crews example | Seven Springs: Chepkevich rejected Crews’ broad reading; inherent risks are those common/frequent/expected | Court: Crews is limited and not controlling; broad Chepkevich rule applies |
| Whether Tayar affects outcome | Mankowski: relied on Tayar to argue policy against exculpation for reckless conduct | Seven Springs: Tayar addresses enforceability of releases, not assumption-of-risk analysis here | Court: Tayar is inapposite; no release issues presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010) (holding boarding/riding chairlifts and falls from lifts are risks inherent to downhill skiing)
- Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc., 762 A.2d 339 (Pa. 2000) (describing Act’s two-part test: injury during skiing and arising from an inherent risk)
- Jones v. Three Rivers Mgmt. Corp., 394 A.2d 546 (Pa. 1978) (no-duty rule applies only to risks common, frequent, and expected)
- Crews v. Seven Springs Mountain Resort, 874 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2005) (limited to its facts; discussed in relation to removable hazards)
- Tayar v. Camelback Corp., 47 A.3d 1190 (Pa. 2012) (addresses enforceability of releases for reckless conduct; not an assumption-of-risk decision)