Colorado Courts Issue Conflicting Opinions On Whether an Inbounds Avalanche Constitutes an Inherent Risk of Skiing

CO Skier Safety Act

Recent litigation surrounding the deaths of two young skiers as a result of inbounds avalanches last year at Vail and Winter Park has prompted two separate Colorado District Courts to issue conflicting opinions as to whether an inbounds avalanche is an “inherent risk” of skiing pursuant to the Colorado Skier Safety Act.  On January 22, 2012, 13-year old Taft Conlin was killed by an inbounds avalanche while skiing at Vail. His family subsequently sued Vail Resorts in Broomfield District Court for negligence and wrongful death.  28-year-old Christopher Norris was also killed by an inbounds avalanche on January 22, 2012 at Winter Park, and his family has filed a lawsuit for his death as well.

The Act does not specifically state whether an inbounds avalanche is an inherent risk of skiing.  This is an important interpretation of the Act because if an inbounds avalanche is considered an “inherent risk” of skiing, then ski resorts will be allowed to escape liability for deaths or injuries caused by inbounds avalanches by relying on a provision in the Act that states “no skier may make any claim against or recover from any ski area operator for injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of skiing.” C.R.S. 33-44-112.

Taft Conlin Case

In the Taft Conlin case, Broomfield District Court Judge Patrick Murphy ordered that an inbounds avalanche is not an inherent risk of skiing because if the legislature had intended to include avalanches in the list of inherent risks of skiing under the Act, it would have done so.  Thus, Judge Murphy ruled that the Conlin case may move forward in Broomfield County.  However, within weeks of Judge Murphy’s ruling, Judge Mary Hoak of Grand County District Court reached the opposite conclusion in the Norris case.  Judge Hoak concluded that inbounds avalanches fall squarely within the definition of inherent dangers and risks of skiing. Thus, the Norris case was dismissed.

Next up, the Colorado Court of Appeals will weigh in on this issue.  A definitive ruling is necessary because it wont only impact the Conlin and Norris cases. It will also narrow or broaden the liability of Colorado’s ski resorts.

Bloch Ongert is a full-service law firm specializing in ski injury cases in Colorado.

Some of the information contained in this blog was obtained from the Denver Post