Roberts v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp.
884 F.3d 967
10th Cir.2018Background
- On Feb. 14, 2014 Michael Roberts (experienced skier) skied in Saratoga Bowl (off‑piste, ungroomed terrain at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort) and fell into a snow‑covered crevice between large boulders, sustaining severe injuries.
- Roberts and his wife sued JHMR in Wyoming federal court for negligence, premises liability, and related claims; JHMR moved for summary judgment based on the Wyoming Recreation Safety Act (WRSA).
- The WRSA codifies primary assumption of the risk: participants assume inherent risks of recreational activities and providers need not eliminate or warn of inherent risks; liability remains only for harms that are not the result of inherent risks.
- Factual record: GoPro video and eyewitness testimony showed visible boulders, trees, and ungroomed terrain; ski patrol described talus fields with voids under fresh snow creating 6–12 foot holes.
- District court granted summary judgment for JHMR; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding encountering boulders/gaps in changing snow on off‑piste runs is an inherent risk of alpine skiing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the WRSA bars Roberts’s negligence claims because his injuries resulted from an "inherent risk" of skiing | Roberts: falling into a hidden 6–8 ft chasm on a marked trail within ski boundaries is not an inherent risk | JHMR: encountering an unmarked, snow‑covered rock formation in an off‑piste black‑diamond run is an inherent risk | Held: Affirmed for JHMR — encountering boulders and gaps in off‑piste conditions is an inherent risk under WRSA |
| Proper specificity for defining the risk under WRSA | Roberts: define risk narrowly (hidden chasm on a marked trail) | JHMR: broader risk (unmarked, snow‑covered rock formations in off‑piste terrain) | Held: Court defined risk at supported specificity: encountering boulders and gaps in changing snow in off‑piste area; this is inherent |
| Whether plaintiff’s expert testimony created a genuine factual dispute about inherency | Roberts: expert opined hazard was not inherent and JHMR should have warned/marked entrance | JHMR: expert was conclusory and addressed breach (warnings) not inherency; conclusory expert opinions insufficient to defeat summary judgment | Held: Expert was conclusory and did not raise a genuine dispute on inherency; summary judgment proper |
| Whether JHMR’s Forest Service permit/operating plan imposed a heightened duty to mark hazards | Roberts: USFS WOP and ski patrol manual (incorporated) require marking unusual hazards — may create higher duty | JHMR: manual disclaims ability to mark all hazards; complaint pleaded tort not contract; no private right created by USFS permit | Held: Court declined to treat the WOP as creating a greater tort duty; manual language and lack of private enforcement defeated the argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 812 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir.) (summary judgment review principles)
- Lounds v. Lincare, Inc., 812 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir.) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (summary judgment standard)
- Cooperman v. David, 214 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir.) (defining risk specificity under WRSA)
- Kovnat v. Xanterra Parks & Resorts, 770 F.3d 949 (10th Cir.) (WRSA/assumption of risk context)
- Dunbar v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp., 392 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir.) (provider choices can create duty by exacerbating risks)
- Sapone v. Grand Targhee, Inc., 308 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir.) (expert evidence relevance to inherency)
- Halpern v. Wheeldon, 890 P.2d 562 (Wyo.) (primary assumption of risk and duty analysis)
- Creel v. L & L, Inc., 287 P.3d 729 (Wyo.) (distinguishing inherent risks from risks increased by provider conduct)