Adie v. Temple Mountain Ski Area, Inc.
Decision Date | 29 February 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 5664,5664 |
Parties | Donna ADIE, by her father and Next Friend, Richard Adie v. TEMPLE MOUNTAIN SKI AREA, INC. Richard ADIE v. TEMPLE MOUNTAIN SKI AREA, INC. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Edward P. McDuffee, Hollis, and Robert Kierce, Chelmsford, Mass., for plaintiffs.
Wyman, Bean & Tefft, Stanton E. Tefft, Manchester, for defendant.
These are actions to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the minor plaintiff while skiing at the defendant's ski area on December 30, 1965. The defendant's motion to dismiss the action prior to trial was transferred without ruling by the Trial Court (Keller, J.).
The plaintiff has alleged that Donna Adie rented skis and equipment and paid admission to the defendant's area. In addition it is alleged that she paid the defendant for skiing instructions and that the defendants were informed that that she had never been on skis before. It is claimed that the defendants through their agents and servants negligently left her unattended in the ski area without proper instructions in such a position that she was caused to fall, sustaining the injuries complained of.
Defendant's motion to dismiss relies upon RSA 225-A:26 (supp) which reads as follows:
The motion relies upon the claim that neither the sixty days notice provision was complied with, nor was the action begun within one year. Finally the motion alleges that the accident is barred absolutely by the statute.
We consider only the issue of whether the accident as alleged falls within the statute since if it does it is barred and if it does not the limitations of actions in the statute are inapplicable.
The statute in its declaration of policy sets forth in some detail that the State of New Hampshire intends to protect its citizens and visitors from unnecessary mechanical hazards from the operation of ski tows, lifts and tramways and that while the primary responsibility for design, construction and maintenance shall rest with the operator, the State through a Passenger Safety Board will establish standards and make such independent inspections as are required to carry out this policy. RSA 225-A:1.
The statute as originally enacted in Laws 1957, ch. 254 and as amended by Laws 1959, ch. 299 contained no reference to actions which might be brought against an operator by a skier and related solely to the inspection and regulation of mechanical lift devices in ski areas. It provided for a Passenger Tramway Safety Board, authorized the Board to adopt regulations for the operation of mechanical lifts and to inspect, register and prevent the operation of unsafe devices.
Laws 1965, ch. 241 substantially amended the previous statute by adding the sections on which the defendant relies. RSA 225-A:2, 225-A:24, 225-A:25, 225-A:26 (supp). These additions to the statute define skiers, set forth the duties of operators to classify and mark trails and slopes, set forth duties of skiers, and contain the limitation and bar of actions set forth above. While regulations as authorized by the original statute cover in some detail the requirements of operators relating to the maintenance and operation of mechanical lifts no regulations have been adopted relating to the amendments of 1965. We are concerned then with the question of whether the statute bars an action for negligent instruction against an operator who has undertaken to instruct skiers.
Defendant relies upon the language of the statute which defines skier as: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Piper v. Meredith
...Because of the specificity of section 39 it cannot be assumed to confer powers not enumerated or referred to. Adie v. Temple Mt. Ski Area, 108 N.H. 480, 483, 238 A.2d 738. The Court seeks to uphold the ordinance as a means of 'protection, preservation and use of the public cemeteries, parks......
-
Berniger v. Meadow Green-Wildcat Corp.
...that the Legislature intended to specifically define limitations of recovery against an operator by a downhill skier." 108 N.H. 480, 483, 238 A.2d 738, 740-41 (1968). Therefore, in light of the legislative intent and the express terms of the statute, we hold that N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 225-A:2......
-
Ghionis v. Deer Valley Resort Co., Ltd., Civ. No. 92-C-0270 A.
...promote the protection of the public." Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037, 1045 (Utah 1991). In Adie v. Temple Mount Ski Area, Inc., 108 N.H. 480, 238 A.2d 738 (1968), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that where a ski safety statute was silent as to ski instruction, the statut......
- Town of Madbury v. Town of Durham
-
The Development of the Standard of Care in Colorado Ski Cases
...standard is required). Rescue case: see, Miller v. Arnel, 632 P.2d 987 (Ariz.App. 1981). Teaching: Adie v. Temple Mountain Ski Area, 238 A.2d 738 (N.H. 1968). Even some criminal law was being formed---see, People v. Entin, 70 MO 29 (Pitkin County 1979). 4. Other articles on ski law written ......