Rutherford Ex Rel. Rutherford v. Talisker Canyons Finance Co.
2014 UT App 190
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Levi Rutherford, a minor, was injured January 15, 2010 while skiing on the Retreat run at the Canyons during a Summit Ski Team practice.
- Levi and his brother skied down the run and Levi collided with a mound of machine-made snow; the injury occurred during ski team activity with permission and insurance requirements.
- The Summit Ski Team required USSA membership and the USSA release Levi signed through his father indemnified USSA from injuries; the release defined USSA broadly to include local ski clubs and operators.
- Rutherford sued the Ski Resort and Ski Team for negligence; the Ski Team sought summary judgment under the Inherent Risks of Skiing Act (the Act); the Ski Resort joined, arguing the Act or exemptions applied.
- The trial court denied the Ski Team’s duty-based summary judgment, found issues about duty, granted Rutherford partial summary judgment on Act applicability, and denied joinder; it also addressed the USSA release and Colorado choice-of-law.
- The Ski Resort petitioned for interlocutory review; the Utah Supreme Court granted review and assigned the appeal to this court for ruling on the Act exemptions, release enforceability, and choice-of-law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competitive vs recreational skiing under the Act | Rutherford: Levi was injured during race training, thus competitive skiing applies. | Ski Resort: Levi’s status is disputed; could be recreational skiing, undermining the exemption. | Remand to determine Levi’s status; not final on issue. |
| Machine-made snow exemption applicability | Exemption covers machine-made snow; alleged malfunctioning snowmaking raises no duty. | Questions of whether the snowmaking equipment malfunction created an avoidable risk; facts control. | Summary judgment improper; disputes of material fact preclude exemption as a matter of law. |
| Enforceability of the USSA release under Utah law | Release may be enforceable under Utah law to bar Levi’s claims against the Ski Resort. | Release is enforceable if Utah law permits it or if Berry/Rothstein analysis supports it. | USSA release unenforceable under Utah law on public policy and statutory grounds; remanded. |
| Colorado choice-of-law provision in the USSA release | Colorado choice-of-law provision should govern contract interpretation. | Colorado law should apply due to USSA’s interests. | Utah law governs; Colorado provision not applicable to determine enforceability here. |
| Effect of 2006 Act amendment on competitive skiing | Competitive skiing should be treated like recreational under the Act after amendment. | Berry remains controlling on pre-injury releases for competitive events. | Utah court adopts amended understanding; pre-injury releases by competitive skiers are not enforceable; release invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037 (Utah 1991) (inherent risks are case-specific; not all listed dangers immunize operators)
- White v. Deseelhorst, 879 P.2d 1371 (Utah 1994) (risk must be alleviated by ordinary care; not every listed danger is inherent)
- Hawkins ex rel. Hawkins v. Peart, 37 P.3d 1062 (Utah 2001) (public policy disfavoring pre-injury minor releases; later superseded by Equine Act changes)
- Rothstein v. Snowbird Corp., 175 P.3d 560 (Utah 2007) (Act public policy to prevent releases from pre-injury; insurance/public policy focus)
- Berry v. Greater Park City Corp., 171 P.3d 442 (Utah 2007) (competitive skiing may be treated differently under the Act; skiing context matters)
- Prows v. Pinpoint Retail Sys., Inc., 868 P.2d 809 (Utah 1993) (conflict-of-laws: Restatement factors for state interest in choice of law)