Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort
808 P.2d 1037 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's negligence if the employee resumes work-related duties after a personal detour that does not constitute a complete abandonment of employment. Additionally, a state's inherent risk statute for skiing does not immunize a ski resort from liability for its own negligence in creating or maintaining a hazard that is not an integral part of the sport.
Facts:
- Snowbird Corporation employed Chris Zulliger as a chef at its Plaza Restaurant, located at the base of the resort.
- Zulliger's manager instructed him to ski to the Mid-Gad Restaurant, located mid-mountain, to inspect its operations before his 3 p.m. shift began.
- As part of his compensation, Snowbird provided Zulliger with a season ski pass.
- Zulliger and a friend skied to the Mid-Gad, conducted the inspection for 15-20 minutes, and then proceeded to ski four additional recreational runs.
- On their final run down the mountain to the Plaza Restaurant, Zulliger approached a crest on an intermediate run that created a blind jump.
- Snowbird was aware that this crest was used as a jump, that it was impossible for skiers above the crest to see those below, and had posted a 'ski slowly' sign which Zulliger ignored.
- Zulliger skied over the crest at a significant speed, became airborne, and collided with Margaret Clover, who was skiing slowly or stopped below the crest.
- Clover was struck in the head and severely injured as a result of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Margaret Clover filed a lawsuit against Chris Zulliger and Snowbird Corporation in a Utah state trial court.
- Zulliger settled separately with Clover.
- Snowbird moved for summary judgment on all of Clover's claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Snowbird, dismissing the case.
- Clover, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Utah.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a ski resort entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that (1) its employee was not acting within the scope of employment as a matter of law when he collided with a skier after taking a personal detour from a work-related task, and (2) the state's Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute bars claims for injuries resulting from allegedly negligent run design?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, Chief Justice
No. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether an employee has re-entered the scope of his employment after a personal detour, and the Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute does not bar claims for hazards that could have been eliminated by a ski resort's use of ordinary care. For the scope of employment issue, the court applied the three-part Birkner test, concluding that a reasonable jury could find Zulliger had resumed his employment by heading down the mountain to report on his inspection and begin his shift. The four-run detour was not necessarily a 'total abandonment' of employment, especially since Snowbird encouraged employees to ski. Regarding the Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute, the court held it does not grant ski operators complete immunity. The statute only shields operators from liability for dangers that are an 'integral part of the sport of skiing,' defined as either characteristics skiers wish to confront or hazards that cannot be eliminated by ordinary care. A known, dangerous blind jump caused by the resort's design is not an inherent risk, and evidence that Snowbird knew of the hazard but failed to take reasonable measures created a triable issue of fact for the jury. The court also clarified that an employer may be held directly liable for negligent supervision regardless of whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies two areas of tort law in Utah. It reinforces that the 'scope of employment' determination for vicarious liability is a highly fact-specific inquiry generally left to a jury, especially in cases involving a 'detour' from work duties rather than a complete abandonment. The ruling also narrowly construes the protections afforded by the Inherent Risk of Skiing Statute, establishing that ski resorts retain a duty of reasonable care and cannot use the statute to shield themselves from liability for creating unnecessary hazards through negligent design or maintenance. This interpretation strengthens protections for patrons and ensures that such statutes are not read as granting blanket immunity to operators.
Unlock the full brief for Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort