Skier Sues Snowbird

A few years ago, a skier in Utah injured himself at Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort and decided to sue the company, saying the waiver he signed was invalid. Now the case will be going before the Utah Supreme Court, and recreational companies in Utah are afraid of the possible consequences.

The plaintiff's argument sounds silly to me. With my limited knowledge of the case and of the evidence, it seems like the guy fully "assumed the risks inherent in the sport of skiing" when he signed the waiver, a waiver that every skier must sign before getting lift tickets. It is only natural for a ski resort to expect their skiers to be aware of and mitigate the risks of skiing, and putting that expectation down in writing only serves to protect the resort. The skiers should already be wary enough to take care of themselves, and when dangerous situations occur, only then is there the issue of due diligence with the resort.

Due diligence in this case means the resort did everything within reason and the best of their ability to prevent injuries to their customers. If they had left a steep, snowless trail open to beginners without any notice, that would be a case for negligence. If there is a fence marking the boundaries of a course, one can reasonably expect people to avoid it. Really, when you see a wall come at you, the only logical course of action is to avoid the wall. If you can't stop in time, then you were going too fast or otherwise skiing beyond your ability to control your skis, in which case the injury would have been your fault. Remember, all skiers are taught from the very beginning to know their limits and to ski within those limits.

This case should just be an issue of weighing the evidence to see whether or not the resort did enough to warn skiers of danger. Even if the plaintiff wins, the case would be based on evidence alone and probably wouldn't have that much impact on the recreational industry. I really don't see why the case made it all the way to the state Supreme Court.