Schmitz v. Cannonsburg Skiing Corp.
Decision Date | 27 September 1988 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 98585 |
Citation | 170 Mich.App. 692,428 N.W.2d 742 |
Parties | Sharon K. SCHMITZ, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Edward Schmitz, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CANNONSBURG SKIING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court 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.
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:
(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, 1981 P.A. 86, Sec. 1.
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:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGoldrick v. Holiday Amusements, Inc.
...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.
...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
...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
...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......