27 Cal. App. 5th 715
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Martine injured her knee while skiing at Heavenly and was placed in a ski-patrol toboggan for descent; the sled overturned and she sustained head and leg injuries when it struck a tree or tumbled.
- Defendant Heavenly moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no triable evidence of ski patroller Horn's negligence and (2) plaintiff’s claim is barred by primary assumption of risk.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Heavenly and denied Martine’s new-trial motion; Martine appealed.
- Key factual dispute: Heavenly says Horn fell after being clipped by snowboarders and the toboggan rolled; Martine says Horn lost control/was going too fast and the sled hit a tree.
- Martine sought to argue (on appeal) that ski patrol acted as a common carrier and that her complaint should be amended to add a separate tram-related injury; trial court refused both.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment improper because triable issue exists on patroller negligence | Martine contended evidence (including res ipsa loquitur inference) shows Horn negligently lost control of sled | Heavenly argued no evidence of breach or causation by Horn | Court did not reach negligence merits; resolved case on assumption-of-risk defense and affirmed SJ |
| Whether primary assumption of risk bars negligence claim | Martine argued she was not engaged in the active sport and thus assumption-of-risk inapplicable | Heavenly argued risks of falling, collisions, and rescue transport are inherent in skiing | Held: doctrine applies; descent in rescue sled involves risks inherent to skiing and bars claim |
| Whether ski patrol acted as a common carrier (invoking highest duty of care) | Martine argued rescue transport was a common-carrier or special-relationship situation | Heavenly argued no regular transport business, no advertising or charge; rescue is discretionary, not public carriage | Held: Not a common carrier; plaintiff did not plead or present facts to support common-carrier status; doctrine inapplicable |
| Whether trial court erred by denying leave to amend complaint or by denying new trial | Martine sought to add separate tram-related injury and claimed newly discovered evidence for new trial | Heavenly noted Martine never sought leave to amend and failed to raise issues below; appellate briefing inadequate | Held: Court did not err — amendment not sought below, claims not plead, and new-trial arguments forfeited or unsupported; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment standards)
- Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (assumption-of-risk in sports duty analysis)
- Lackner v. North, 135 Cal.App.4th 1188 (cataloguing inherent risks of skiing)
- Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.4th 1499 (common-carrier analysis for ski-lift context)