N.M. Stat. Ann. § 24-15-7
Every ski area operator shall have the following duties with respect to the operation of a skiing area:
History: Laws 1969, ch. 218, § 7; 1953 Comp., § 12-16-7; recompiled as 1953 Comp., § 12-28-7 by Laws 1972, ch. 51, § 9; 1978 Comp., § 24-15-7, repealed and reenacted by Laws 1979, ch. 279, § 4; 1997, ch. 211, § 5.
Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1979, ch. 279, § 4 repealed and reenacted 24-15-7 NMSA 1978, effective April 4, 1979.
The 1997 amendment, effective June 20, 1997, rewrote Subsection C, inserted "at the top of or entrance to the subject trail or slope" in Subsection E, inserted "or entrance" near the end of Subsection F, substituted "meets at least the requirements of the national ski patrol outdoor emergency care course" for "meets the requirements of the American Red Cross advanced first aid course" near the beginning of Subsection G, added Subsection J, and made minor stylistic changes in Subsections H and I.
Duty to provide warning to skiers of the degree of difficulty of ski slopes or the existence of unusual obstacles or hazards located in skiing areas, imposed under Subsections C and I, may assume additional significance as the difficulty of the skiing area becomes more pronounced, or the degree of danger posed by the risk of collision with an unprotected ski tower located in the designated skiing area increases. Lopez v. Ski Apache Resort, 1992-NMCA-047, 114 N.M. 202, 836 P.2d 648, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 815, 833 P.2d 1181.
Duty to warn. — A ski resort did not breach its duty to warn under this section when it installed a single strand diversionary rope and blocked off an otherwise skiable area since the evidence was that the rope had been in place for at least 12 years and over one million skiers had managed to ski past it without injury. Kidd v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 88 F.3d 848 (10th Cir. 1996).
Conspicuous warnings not required. — The Ski Safety Act does not require the trail warnings of unusual obstacles or hazards to be conspicuous. Barba v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 145 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1998).
Duties for ski operators. — This section, not 24-15-2 NMSA 1978, sets out the specific duties for ski operators in a skiing area. Barba v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 145 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1998).
Warning adequate. — Where the uncontroverted evidence was that Taos did not "know" that the picnic table near ski trail was a hazard because it had been at that same location for more than twenty years and no one had collided with it, the trail map board marking the location of the picnic table on the ski run and the sign warning of unmarked obstacles were adequate under the standards of the National Ski Areas Association, and, therefore, under the Ski Safety Act. Barba v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2324, (10th Cir. 1998), decision without published opinion, 145 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1998).
"Warn or correct" hazards. — Where skier was injured by colliding with picnic table while skiing and argued that rather than warn of the picnic table, the operator should have corrected the hazard, the plain language of the Ski Safety Act specifically states that the operator must "warn or correct" hazards. Barba v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2324, (10th Cir. 1998), decision without published opinion, 145 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to assert a breach of duty. — Where plaintiff, who was injured while skiing at Taos ski valley after he struck a rope barricade near the intersection of two closed ski trails, brought a complaint against the ski area operator, alleging violations of the New Mexico Ski Safety Act (NMSSA), §§ 24-15-1 through 24-15-14 NMSA 1978, summary judgment in favor of defendant was granted because plaintiff failed to adequately plead a breach of duty under the NMSSA. Defendant had a duty under the NMSSA to mark closed slopes, trails, or areas with appropriate symbols established or approved by rules of the New Mexico ski area operators association (NMSAOA), and the rope that defendant placed at the entrance of the closed trail where plaintiff was injured was a proper closure under the NMSSA and the NMSAOA rules. Moreover, plaintiff failed to assert evidence sufficient to show defendant's actual knowledge that the rope was a hazard. Showmaker v. Taos Ski Valley, 566 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (D. N.M. 2021).
Doctrine of comparative negligence is applicable to claims brought under the act where both the skier and the ski area operator are alleged to have breached statutory duties. Lopez v. Ski Apache Resort, 1992-NMCA-047, 114 N.M. 202, 836 P.2d 648, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 815, 833 P.2d 1181.
General duty to novice skier. — The scope of the duty imposed on ski operations in Subsection I of this section was not broad enough to encompass the duty to provide a general warning to a novice skier that, because of the skier's limited abilities, portions of a beginner slope may have been dangerous. Philippi v. Sipapu, Inc., 961 F.2d 1492 (10th Cir. 1992).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 27A Am. Jur. 2d Entertainment and Sports Law §§ 54 et seq., 81, 82.
Ski resort's liability for skier's injuries resulting from condition of ski run or slope, 55 A.L.R.4th 632.