25 Cal. App. 5th 344
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Kathleen Willhide‑Michiulis, a Mammoth season‑pass holder, was riding down an open run when she collided with a Mammoth snowcat and was pulled into its operating tiller; she suffered catastrophic injuries and later sued Mammoth for gross negligence and loss of consortium.
- The snowcat was operating with beacon, lights, and an audible alarm; operator Clifford Mann had been dispatched to fill a hazardous hole after heavy snowfall and turned onto a service road from the middle of the run without signaling.
- Mammoth’s grooming manual generally prohibits tiller operation on runs open to the public but permits exceptions (emergencies, heavy snow, transportation); the manual also discourages leaving track marks and indicates tiller use may be necessary when on open runs.
- Willhide‑Michiulis signed a season‑pass agreement waiving liability for injuries arising from participation in the sport, including collisions with “over‑snow vehicles”; Mammoth moved for summary judgment based on that waiver and primary assumption of risk.
- The trial court excluded three expert declarations submitted by plaintiffs as offering legal conclusions and granted summary judgment for Mammoth, finding collision with snow‑grooming equipment is an inherent risk of the sport and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of gross negligence; plaintiffs appeal (also challenged denial of venue transfer).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of expert declarations on summary judgment | Experts were needed to explain the esoteric practices of snowcat operation and industry standards (Kahn permissive) | Experts offered legal conclusions, lacked foundation, and were irrelevant to legal questions | Court did not abuse discretion excluding experts; declarations impermissibly opined on legal issues and added nothing on industry standards |
| Applicability of express waiver / primary assumption of risk | Collision with a snowcat/tiller on an open run was not an inherent risk or, alternatively, Mammoth’s conduct increased that risk | Season‑pass waiver expressly covered collisions with over‑snow vehicles; colliding with grooming equipment is an inherent risk | Waiver applied; collision with snow‑grooming equipment is an inherent/necessary risk of snowboarding, so waiver bars recovery |
| Gross negligence (duty and standard) | Mann’s alleged failures (no turn signal, turning from center, lack of spotters/warnings, operating tiller) amounted to gross negligence and fell outside the waiver | Operator used lights/beacon/alarm, looked for skiers, drove slowly; conduct did not show want of scant care or extreme departure from standards | No triable issue of gross negligence as matter of law; asserted conduct did not rise to want of scant care or extreme departure given warnings and precautions |
| Venue transfer denial | Mono County was inconvenient and unfair; case should be tried in Los Angeles if summary judgment is reversed | Denial was within trial court discretion; no prejudice shown because case was dismissed | Court declined to reach merits because summary judgment affirmed and plaintiffs cannot show prejudice from venue denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist., 31 Cal.4th 990 (discusses permissible role of expert testimony about customary practices in esoteric activities)
- Towns v. Davidson, 147 Cal.App.4th 461 (expert testimony excluded where it offered legal conclusions on recklessness in skiing context)
- Souza v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp., 138 Cal.App.4th 262 (plainly visible snowmaking/grooming equipment is an inherent risk of skiing)
- Connelly v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, 39 Cal.App.4th 8 (collisions with obvious, plainly visible equipment are inherent risks)
- Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc., 218 Cal.App.3d 111 (adopts list of inherent skiing risks including snow‑grooming equipment)
- City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (release cannot absolve liability for gross negligence; distinction between ordinary and gross negligence explained)
- Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 237 Cal.App.4th 546 (evidence of specific safety standards can create triable issue of gross negligence)
- Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd., 192 Cal.App.4th 1072 (failure to follow mandatory safety procedures can be gross negligence; expert evidence on customary precautions relevant)