Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc.
Decision Date | 22 February 1990 |
Docket Number | No. E005891,E005891 |
Citation | 266 Cal.Rptr. 749,218 Cal.App.3d 111 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Vicki L. DANIELEY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GOLDMINE SKI ASSOCIATES, Defendant and Respondent. |
The appeal here is from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc. (Goldmine) in an action arising from serious personal injuries suffered by plaintiff Vicki L. Danieley when she collided with a tree while skiing on lands in the San Bernardino Mountains, operated by Goldmine as a ski area. In the first count of the complaint Goldmine was charged with negligence in the operation and maintenance of the premises, which included the ski run next to which plaintiff Vicki L. Danieley was injured. More specifically, the complaint alleged that Goldmine had failed "to remove an obstacle [a tree immediately adjacent to the ski run] which presented an unreasonably high risk of harm ..." The second count, in which Charlie Danieley joined as a plaintiff, alleged a loss of consortium with his wife.
The trial court granted Goldmine's motion for summary judgment for the reason, as stated in the minute order, that "no facts alleged re establishing duty on the part of Defendant to remove obstacles." In our view, the trial court correctly ruled on the motion, and so we shall affirm the judgment.
In February of 1987, plaintiffs, husband and wife, along with their two sons, including Charlie Danieley III, traveled to the Goldmine Ski Area, adjoining Big Bear Lake in the San Bernardino Mountains, for a day of skiing. After lunch, while descending a ski run, bearing the name "Upper Claim Jumper" and designated as an "intermediate" run, plaintiff wife lost control of her skis while attempting to turn, and then, while out of control, collided with a large tree just beyond the groomed edge of the run.
Plaintiff wife sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision, and swift action by the ski patrol in removing her from the mountain probably saved her life. This litigation followed.
As above noted, plaintiffs' two-count complaint included a garden-variety premises liability claim based on defendant ski area operator's alleged negligence, plus plaintiff husband's claim for loss of consortium. Goldmine's answer denied any responsibility for plaintiff wife's injuries and alleged four affirmative defenses, including that plaintiff wife had "assumed any and all of the risks ... referred to in said Complaint, and therefore, assumed the risk of any injuries or damages sustained, if any."
Extensive discovery ensued, including depositions of both plaintiffs and son Charlie III, plus those of two Goldmine employees, Marshall D. Boswell, Jr. and Joseph A. Shuff.
Goldmine then noticed a motion for summary judgment, and papers filed in support of the motion included excerpts of certain of the depositions noted, authenticated by the declaration of one of Goldmine's attorneys. Plaintiffs' opposition filings included additional, authenticated deposition excerpts.
Distilling the contents of the deposition excerpts on which it relied, Goldmine prepared and filed a statement of undisputed facts as here recited, with the deposition citations omitted.
Plaintiffs, in opposing the motion, of course insisted that there were triable issues of fact. Included as part of their Memorandum of Points and Authorities, plaintiffs recited what they perceived to be triable issues of fact as follows: "(1) whether the failure to remove or guard against a tree which is within or adjacent to a ski run, and which tree is located less than 100 feet from the top of chairlift number 1 and within clear view of the unloading station manned and controlled by defendant's employees, and this area of the ski run (which was designed, maintained and controlled by defendants and its employees) is commonly used by skiers to make one of their first downhill turns, constitutes a breach of duty to permissive users of the property; (2) whether the failure to remove or guard against the above-described tree, violates any applicable standard of care; (3) whether the presence of such a tree, in this particular location, is a dangerous condition which constitutes an unreasonable risk of harm to foreseeable use of the property; (4) whether defendant acted negligently in attending to plaintiff's injuries based upon defective equipment and/or improper medical treatment; ( ) whether defendant was negligent in failing to conduct any line of sight or other proof testing to assure that hazards within or adjacent to the ski run are removed; (6) whether defendant was negligent in failing to maintain proper maintenance, repair and/or inspection programs; and (7) whether defendant was negligent in the use, application and grooming of 'man made' snow in the area of plaintiff's accident."
Otherwise plaintiffs, in a separate filing, submitted a catalog of disputed facts, each supported by citations to portions of the several depositions noted. Such statement, without the deposition citations, reads:
After considering the written filings and listening to oral argument, the trial court granted the motion, doing so from the bench. As indicated earlier, the minute order recited the reason for the ruling to be that no facts had been shown such as would establish any duty devolving on Goldmine to remove the tree with which plaintiff wife collided. Judgment was later entered on the order granting the motion, and this appeal followed.
By their notice of appeal dated August 30, 1988, plaintiffs have purported to appeal from a judgment of July 1, 1988. The latter date is the one on which the motion for summary judgment was granted and so plaintiffs have undertaken to appeal from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knight v. Jewett
...and ski resorts (see, e.g., Quinn v. Recreation Park Assn., supra, 3 Cal.2d 725, 46 P.2d 144; Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 111, 266 Cal.Rptr. 749), against manufacturers and reconditioners of sporting equipment (see, e.g., Holdsworth v. Nash Mfg., Inc. (19......
-
Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc.
...(FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382, 282 Cal.Rptr. 508; Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 111, 119, 266 Cal.Rptr. 749.) We recently said: " '[M]ateriality depends on the issues in the case; evidence which does not relate to a ......
-
Lackner v. North
...skiers, ski lift towers, and other properly marked or plainly visible objects and equipment. (Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 111, 123, 266 Cal.Rptr. 749; Connelly v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 8, 12, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 855; O'Donoghue v. Bea......
-
Lopez v. Ski Apache Resort, 11400
...428 N.W.2d at 744. The court held that all of these conditions are inherent to the sport of skiing. In Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, 218 Cal.App.3d 111, 266 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1990), a skier collided with the tree located near the edge of the ski run. Although without the benefit of a sk......