Schmitz v. Cannonsburg Skiing Corp.

Decision Date27 September 1988
Docket NumberDocket No. 98585
Citation170 Mich.App. 692,428 N.W.2d 742
PartiesSharon K. SCHMITZ, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Edward Schmitz, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CANNONSBURG SKIING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Foster, P.C. by Michael H. Perry, Lansing, and George Geddis, III, Owosso, for plaintiff-appellant.

Sullivan, Ward, Bone, Tyler, Fiott & Asher, P.C. by Michelle A. Thomas, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before DANHOF, C.J., and MacKENZIE and JOSLYN *, JJ.

MacKENZIE, Judge.

Plaintiff's decedent died as the result of injuries incurred when he struck, while downhill skiing, the lone tree growing on a ski slope operated by defendant. Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). The trial court ruled that plaintiff's claims of negligence and intentional nuisance were barred by the Ski Area Safety Act, M.C.L. Sec. 408.321 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 18.483(1) et seq. We agree and affirm.

Section 22(2) of the Ski Area Safety Act, M.C.L. Sec. 408.342(2); M.S.A. Sec. 18.483(22)(2), provides:

"Each person who participates in the sport of skiing accepts the dangers that inhere in that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries which can result from variations in terrain; surface or subsurface snow or ice conditions; bare spots; rocks, trees, and other forms of natural growth or debris; collisions with ski lift towers and their components, with other skiers, or with properly marked or plainly visible snow-making or snow-grooming equipment." (Emphasis added.)

The Ski Area Safety Act was enacted, among other reasons, "to provide for certain presumptions relative to liability for an injury or damage sustained by skiers [and] to prescribe the duties of skiers and ski area operators." Preamble, 1962 P.A. 199, as amended by 1981 P.A. 86, Sec. 1.

"The Legislature perceived a problem with respect to the inherent dangers of skiing and the need for promoting safety, coupled with the uncertain and potentially enormous ski area operators' liability. Given these competing interests, the Legislature decided to establish rules in order to regulate the ski operators and to set out ski operators' and skiers' responsibilities in the area of safety. MCL 408.340 et seq.; MSA 18.483(20) et seq. As part of this reform, the Legislature has decided that all skiers assume the obvious and necessary dangers of skiing. This is a rational solution for limiting ski area operators' liability and promoting safety." Grieb v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc, 155 Mich.App. 484, 488-489, 400 N.W.2d 653 (1986), lv. den. 428 Mich. 864 (1987).

Plaintiff contends that the language of the Ski Area Safety Act sets up a scheme of codified negligence using the common-law standards of reasonable behavior under the circumstances. This contention is supported by the language of M.C.L. Sec. 408.342(1); M.S.A. Sec. 18.483(22)(1) which states that a skier must "[m]aintain reasonable control of his or her speed and course at all times." Plaintiff's contention is further supported by M.C.L. Sec. 408.344; M.S.A. Sec. 18.483(24), which states that a skier or ski area operator who violates the act is "liable for the portion of loss or damage resulting from that violation," and which suggests a comparative negligence principle such as that articulated in Placek v. Sterling Heights, 405 Mich. 638, 275 N.W.2d 511 (1979), reh. den. 406 Mich. 1119 (1979). Indeed, the Senate's own analysis of the amended act notes that it was intended to coincide, rather than conflict, with the existing comparative negligence law by reiterating that each person is liable for his own actions and encouraging skiers to seriously accept responsibility for their own safety and that of others. Senate Legislative Analysis, SB49, April 17, 1981.

We have no quarrel with plaintiff's interpretation of the act, as far as it goes. However, the Senate Analysis also speaks of the Legislature's concern with making the skier, rather than the ski area operator, bear the burden of damages from injuries:

"By clearly defining the extent to which skiers and ski area operators are liable for damages and injuries sustained in skiing accidents, the bill would help reduce the number of lawsuits in which skiers recover large sums of money for injuries that are primarily their own fault. This, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • McGoldrick v. Holiday Amusements, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 18 d3 Outubro d3 2000
    ...McCormick v. Go Forward Operating Ltd. Partnership, 235 Mich. App. 551, 553-554, 599 N.W.2d 513 (1999); Schmitz v. Cannonsburg Skiing Corp., 170 Mich.App. 692, 695, 428 N.W.2d 742 (1988). The SASA also provides that ski operators are required to do certain things in operating ski areas, inc......
  • Brett v. Great American Recreation, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 13 d4 Junho d4 1996
    ...risk is one that cannot be removed through the exercise of due care if the sport is to be enjoyed. See Schmitz v. Cannonsburg Skiing Corp., 170 Mich.App. 692, 428 N.W.2d 742, 744 (1988) (noting that if inherent dangers do not exist, "there is no skiing"). As the statement of legislative pur......
  • Lopez v. Ski Apache Resort, 11400
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 24 d5 Abril d5 1992
    ...Act divides areas of responsibility between the ski area operator and the skier. See Sec. 24-15-2; cf. Schmitz v. Cannonsburg Skiing Corp., 170 Mich.App. 692, 428 N.W.2d 742, 743 (1988) (discussing Michigan's Ski Area Safety Act). Under Section 24-15-2, an individual is primarily responsibl......
  • Rusnak v. Walker
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 19 d2 Dezembro d2 2006
    ...created. See Grieb v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc., 155 Mich.App. 484, 486, 400 N.W.2d 653 (1986); Schmitz v. Cannonsburg Skiing Corp., 170 Mich.App. 692, 695-696, 428 N.W.2d 742 (1988); Kent, supra at 743-744, 613 N.W.2d 383; McCormick, supra at 555-556, 599 N.W.2d 513. We do agree, howeve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT