Breanne Bennett v. Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc.
60 Fed. R. Serv. 645, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1658, 318 F.3d 868 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of implied primary assumption of risk, a participant in a sport voluntarily assumes the risks that are inherent in or incidental to that sport, regardless of the participant's subjective knowledge or appreciation of those specific risks.
Facts:
- On February 7, 1998, Breanne Bennett, a 16-year-old with limited skiing experience, went to a midnight ski session at Hidden Valley.
- While skiing down a slope marked for intermediate difficulty, Bennett fell at a bump or mogul.
- The bump was not intentionally created by Hidden Valley but had formed naturally as skiers and snowboarders moved snow across the slope.
- Upon falling, Bennett was thrown forward about five feet and landed limp.
- There was conflicting evidence as to whether she struck a tree during the fall.
- Bennett sustained significant injuries, including alleged brain damage.
Procedural Posture:
- Breanne Bennett filed a negligence lawsuit against Hidden Valley Golf and Ski, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Hidden Valley denied negligence and asserted the affirmative defense of implied primary assumption of risk.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of all evidence, Bennett made a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Hidden Valley.
- The district court entered judgment for Hidden Valley based on the jury's verdict.
- Bennett, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the defense of implied primary assumption of risk in a sporting activity, under Missouri law, require a showing that the plaintiff had subjective knowledge and appreciation of the specific risk that caused the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, Circuit Judge
No. Under Missouri law, the defense of implied primary assumption of risk does not require a showing that the plaintiff had subjective knowledge of the specific risk; rather, it focuses on whether the risk encountered was inherent in the sport itself. The court reasoned that this doctrine relates to the initial question of whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. For risks inherent to a sport, the defendant has no duty to protect the participant. The Missouri Supreme Court, in cases like Perkins v. Byrnes and Anderson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, established that participants accept hazards that reasonably inhere in a sport, focusing on the objective nature of the risk rather than the plaintiff's subjective state of mind. The court found persuasive authority in California's common law, particularly Knight v. Jewett, which explicitly states that a ski resort is not liable for injuries a novice skier sustains from an inherent risk like a mogul, regardless of the skier's knowledge. Therefore, a jury instruction asking whether the conditions Bennett encountered were 'a risk inherent in the sport of skiing' was a fair and adequate statement of the law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the objective standard for implied primary assumption of risk in the context of sporting activities under Missouri law. It clarifies that the inquiry is not into the plaintiff's mind (their experience or knowledge) but into the nature of the activity itself. This provides greater protection to operators of recreational facilities, as they are shielded from liability for injuries arising from the common, expected dangers of a sport, so long as they have not independently been negligent. The ruling makes it more difficult for inexperienced participants to recover for injuries caused by risks that are considered integral to a sport.
