Ronald Ritari Jr v. Peter E O'Dovero Inc
335870
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- On Jan 29, 2015 Ronald Ritari Jr., a season-pass holder, was riding a chair lift at Marquette Mountain when his ski tip caught a nylon rope installed under the lift; he was pulled from the chair and suffered serious fractures.
- Ritari sued for negligence, alleging improper placement of the rope, failure to warn, and failure of the lift operator to stop the lift after he called for help.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing releases Ritari signed (a season-pass release and a two-sided NASTAR form) barred his claim and that the Ski Area Safety Act (SASA), MCL 408.342(2), likewise barred suit by imposing an assumption-of-risk defense.
- The NASTAR form included a front-side registration/release tied to racing and a back-side “Participant” release that used broad language releasing the ski area from “all liabilities” for injuries arising from the “Activity.”
- The trial court denied summary disposition, finding factual issues about whether the Participant release applied outside racing/training and whether the SASA defense (inherence/obviousness/necessity) applied; discovery had not occurred.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the Participant release, read with the NASTAR registration, unambiguously protects the ski area only for injuries occurring while training for or competing in races, and factual disputes (including ANSI clearance, rope purpose/location, and obviousness/necessity) precluded resolution under SASA at the summary stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Participant release bars Ritari's claim | Ritari says the Participant release applies only to racing/training and he was recreationally skiing | O’Dovero says the Participant release covers "alpine skiing in its various forms" and releases all liability at all times | Release is unambiguous but, read with the NASTAR registration, limits liability to injuries sustained while training for or competing in races; summary disposition denied on this ground |
| Whether the season-pass release and SASA (MCL 408.342(2)) bar the claim | Ritari says the rope placement was not an inherent, necessary, or obvious risk of skiing | O’Dovero says fencing/rope risks inhere in skiing and SASA shields it from suit | Material facts (rope purpose, placement, ANSI clearance, obviousness/necessity) are disputed and unresolved by discovery; SASA defense not resolved on (C)(10) motion |
| Whether the Participant release is ambiguous | Ritari argues ambiguity supports denying enforcement beyond racing | O’Dovero argues language is broad and unambiguous to cover all skiing activity | Court: language is not ambiguous, but its plain meaning — read with the registration form — confines it to competition-related activities |
| Whether summary disposition was appropriate at this early stage | Ritari contends factual development is required | O’Dovero seeks early judgment based on releases/statute | Court: factual disputes and lack of discovery make summary disposition inappropriate; affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 273 Mich. App. 388 (de novo review of summary disposition)
- Cole v. Ladbroke Racing Mich., Inc., 241 Mich. App. 1 (release interpretation; ambiguity standard)
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358 (summary disposition (C)(10) standard)
- Anderson v. Pine Knob Ski Resort, 469 Mich. 20 (SASA inherent-risk/obvious-and-necessary framework)