Sanchez v. Sunday River Skyway Corp., Civ. No. 92-128-P-C.
Decision Date | 08 January 1993 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 92-128-P-C. |
Citation | 810 F. Supp. 17 |
Parties | Luis SANCHEZ, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUNDAY RIVER SKYWAY CORP., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Phillip D. Buckley, Rudman & Winchell, Bangor, ME, for plaintiffs.
Evan M. Hanson, Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, Portland, ME, for defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Court now has before it Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 13) on the two remaining counts of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Count I of the Complaint alleges that Sunday River was negligent in failing to groom and clear the trail. Count II alleges that Sunday River was negligent in failing to mark or pad an obstruction. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion with regard to both counts.
On January 14, 1992, minor Plaintiff, Luis Sanchez, Jr., was seriously injured while skiing at Sunday River Ski Resort in Newry, Maine.1 Luis Jr. was accompanied by his father, Luis Sanchez, Sr., and a family friend. Father and son were on their initial ski run of the day on a trail called "American Express" when Luis Jr. struck a patch of ice and fell, sliding downward on the slope. As Luis Jr. fell, his right leg hit an unmarked tree stump protruding from the snow.
The Court has carefully reviewed the written submissions of the parties on the motion, and because the Court finds various outstanding issues of material fact which must be resolved, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The issues of fact include, inter alia, whether the stump, which Sanchez hit, is included within the statutory meaning of a "danger inherent in the sport" of skiing within the meaning of Maine's Skiers' and Tramway Passengers' Responsibilities Act, 26 M.R.S.A. § 488 (1988).2
With regard to duties and responsibilities of skiers, ski area liability statutes can be divided into two categories: specific and general. Specific statutes list the risks which are considered inherent in the sport of skiing. These nonexclusive lists include items for which the skier expressly assumes, or shall be considered to have voluntarily assumed, the risk of loss or damage and for which there can be no recovery. See, e.g., Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 408.342(2); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 225-A:24; Or.Rev.Stat. § 30.970. General statutes provide that inherent dangers exist in the sport of skiing and that skiers are deemed to have assumed the risk of such dangers. No list of what constitutes an inherent danger is included in these more general statutes. See, e.g., Pa.Cons.Stat. Ann. § 7102(c); Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 12 § 1037.
Maine's ski area liability statute is general, not specific. Thus, in order to decide the motion before the Court, the Court must determine whether a tree stump is, as a matter of law, a risk posed by an inherent danger of skiing under the Maine statute. This Court holds that the determination of whether something is a "danger inherent in the sport" of skiing, within the meaning of Maine's ski area liability statute, depends upon the factual circumstances surrounding the accident. The Court bases its conclusion on the legislative history of section 488, as well as the common law.
The original bill proposed to the Legislature in 1979, which sought to amend the Skiers' and Tramway Passengers' Responsibilities Act, included a list of inherent risks covering both manmade and naturally occurring conditions. The Legislature, however, never adopted the proposed bill: rather, it amended section 488 without listing inherent dangers. Immediately before the 1979 amendments passed, Representative Gwadosky made the following remarks on the record:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green v. Sunday River Skiway Corp.
...of such dangers. No list of what constitutes an inherent danger is included in these more general statutes. Sanchez v. Sunday River Skyway Corp., 810 F.Supp. 17, 18 (D.Me.1993) (citations When this Court last visited the issue of ski area liability, Maine had a general statute. See id. The ......
-
Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp.
...is an inherent one must ordinarily be resolved by jury in absence of legislative specification of such risks); Sanchez v. Sunday River Skiway Corp., 810 F.Supp. 17 (D.Me.1993) (in absence of legislative specification of inherent risks, whether a stump in the trail was a risk posed by an inh......