Ford v. Black Mountain Tramways, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5927,5927 |
| Citation | 259 A.2d 129,110 N.H. 20 |
| Parties | E. Allison FORD v. BLACK MOUNTAIN TRAMWAYS, INC. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Nighswander, Lord & Martin and David J. Killkelley, Laconia, for plaintiff.
Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green and E. Paul Kelly, Manchester, for defendant.
Certification of questions of law by the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit to this Court as to the interpretation and effect of statute (RSA 225-A:26 (supp); Laws 1965, 241:2) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire which is the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Rule. RSA 490:App. R.21.
The plaintiff, a citizen of New York, brought in the District Court for the District of New Hampshire a diversity action for injuries allegedly caused by defendant's negligent operation and maintenance of a double chair ski lift on Black Mountain in Jackson, New Hampshire. The District Court dismissed plaintiff's action because of the conceded failure to give the 60-day notice specified in RSA 225-A:26 II (supp); Laws 1965, 241:2 and the plaintiff appealed. That statute reads as follows: * * *' (emphasis supplied)
Said section 26 further provides in subsection I: 'Unless an operator is in violation of this chapter or the regulations of the board, which violation is causal of the injury complained of, no action shall lie against any operator by any skier or representative thereof; this prohibition shall not, however, prevent the maintenance of an action against an operator for negligent construction or maintenance of the passenger tramway itself or any building within the area. * * *' (emphasis supplied)
The principal issue presented in the certification is quoted: 'Plaintiff claims that he may maintain an action for common law negligent maintenance and construction according to the subsection I proviso, and that for such a claim no notice is required, since subsection II applies only when a 'violation of this chapter' is alleged.'
Although skiing has come of age and its increased availability and popularity has produced considerable ski area litigation, it may be noted as a preliminary matter that no case in this or any other jurisdiction has dealt with the statutory construction issue involved in this case. See Gaines, Skiing Accident Litigation, 15 Trials 147 (1968); Wells, Liability of Ski Area Operators, 41 Denver L.C.J. 1 (1964); Annot. 94 A.L.R.2d 1431. As the District Court observed this case is one 'where the construction of a peculiarly local and relatively undefined state statute is involved.'
The defendant first contends that the statute (RSA 225-A:26; Laws 1965, 241:2) governs in any action against any operator by any skier. This contention was advanced and rejected in Adie v. Temple Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 108 N.H. 480, 238 A.2d 738. The defendant also argues that the Legislature did not intend to retain a common law cause of action for the negligent construction or maintenance of a passenger tramway and that such a cause of action should be controlled by the limitations of Section 26 of the statute. The greatest difficulty with this argument is that such an interpretation would make meaningless the second clause of subsection I, RSA 225-A:26 I; 1965, 241; 2. That second clause, previously quoted and italicized, specifically states that it does not '* * * prevent the maintenance of an action against an operator for negligent construction or maintenance of the passenger tramway itself * * *.' This indicates...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morningstar v. Black and Decker Mfg. Co.
...v. Benjamin, 220 A.2d 248 (Me.1966); Irion v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., 154 Mont. 156, 461 P.2d 199 (1969); Ford v. Black Mountain Tramways, 110 N.H. 20, 259 A.2d 129 (1969); In re Elliott, 74 Wash.2d 600, 446 P.2d 347 (1968). We conclude, therefore, that from the language of W.Va.Code, 51......
-
Raymond v. Eli Lilly & Co.
...20 (Supp.1975), and have done so in the past. E.g., Bellotte v. Zayre Corp., 116 N.H. 52, 352 A.2d 723 (1976); Ford v. Black Mountain Tramways, 110 N.H. 20, 259 A.2d 129 (1969). For a comprehensive discussion of certification of questions of law to state courts see Lillich & Mundy, Federal ......
-
Bolduc v. Herbert Schneider Corp.
...113 N.H. 667, 313 A.2d 411 (1973). We have construed RSA 225-A:26 (Supp.1975) narrowly in the past, e. g., Ford v. Black Mountain Tramways, 110 N.H. 20, 259 A.2d 129 (1969); Adie v. Temple Mt. Ski Area, 108 N.H. 480, 238 A.2d 738 (1968), and those cases do not support the defendant's positi......
-
Cowan v. Tyrolean Ski Area, Inc.
...clear. See Bolduc v. Herbert Schneider Corp., 117 N.H. 566, 568, 374 A.2d 1187, 1188-89 (1977). And they cite Ford v. Black Mountain Tramways, 110 N.H. 20, 259 A.2d 129 (1969) as specific authority for construing this statute as preserving the common law action for negligent We do not read ......