233 F. Supp. 3d 934
D. Colo.2017Background
- Plaintiff was injured exiting the Colorado SuperChair at Breckenridge during summer operations on June 25, 2013; she claimed Vail’s lift operators acted unreasonably when instructing disembarkation and that their conduct caused her fall and severe leg/ankle injuries.
- Plaintiff previously signed a written release at the Fun Park in 2012; on the day of injury she rode using a required lift ticket that had a printed warning on the front and a liability waiver on the back; she did not sign anything that day and disputed reading the back.
- The lift’s design, signage, ramp slope, and operation complied with applicable Colorado law and ANSI B77.1-2011; summer chairs run slower and detach to ~1.6 mph in terminals.
- Plaintiff produced no expert on lift operations or standard of care; Vail’s expert (an ANSI lift-operations chairman) opined the design and operation complied with standards and identified safer alternatives operators could have used.
- Lower-court procedural posture: cross-motions for summary judgment; court found genuine disputes about breach/standard of care but concluded the lift-ticket waiver was a clear, enforceable exculpatory agreement and entered summary judgment for defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to establish standard of care for lift operators | Cites need for expert on specialized lift-operation standards; but also argued operator conduct was obviously unreasonable | Expert required because standard is technical and industry-based | Court: No expert required; whether operators acted reasonably is within common knowledge; genuine fact issues preclude summary judgment on breach |
| Whether Vail breached duty in how attendants signaled/slowed/assisted during unload | Attendants signaled too late, didn’t slow/stop or assist, forcing abrupt hop and causing fall | Operators complied with procedure and standards; evidence supports they signaled and hit slow | Court: Genuine disputes of material fact exist on breach and whether operators slowed or assisted; summary judgment denied on breach issue |
| Enforceability of lift-ticket waiver/exculpatory clause | Waiver was unreadable/small print and said "warning" not "release"; plaintiff didn’t sign it on that day | Ticket was required to ride; front warned of reverse-side warning; language on back clearly and unambiguously waived negligence claims; acceptance by use binds holder | Court: Waiver is clear and enforceable; plaintiff is bound by ticket terms; summary judgment for defendant on waiver issue |
| Whether the Colorado Premises Liability Act or public-policy exceptions bar enforcement of the waiver | CPLA and ski-safety precedents require heightened duties and could invalidate exculpatory agreements for public-safety concerns | CPLA does not address exculpatory agreements; recreational activities are not essential public services; no public-policy infirmity here | Court: CPLA/public-policy do not invalidate this recreational waiver; waiver stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370 (Colo. 1981) (four-factor test for enforceability of exculpatory waivers)
- Mincin v. Vail Holdings, Inc., 308 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2002) (CPLA does not categorically bar exculpatory agreements for recreational activities)
- Squires v. Breckenridge Outdoor Educ. Center, 715 F.3d 867 (10th Cir. 2013) (interpretation of waiver language and clarity requirement)
- Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998) (ski-lift duty discussion; does not decide waiver applicability)
- Oliver v. Amity Mut. Irrigation Co., 994 P.2d 495 (Colo. App. 1999) (expert testimony unnecessary where standard of care is within common knowledge)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 100 P.3d 465 (Colo. 2004) (recreational businesses do not owe special public-duty that precludes waivers)