Kibler v. Blue Knob Recreation, Inc.
184 A.3d 974 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Pennsylvania Skier's Responsibility Act, variations in terrain such as ruts, even those created by a resort's own equipment, are an inherent risk of downhill skiing assumed by the participant. A conspicuous exculpatory release that waives liability for negligence will be enforced against a skier for injuries arising from such inherent risks.
Facts:
- On March 21, 2014, Patrick Kibler applied for a season ski pass at Blue Knob Ski Resort.
- As part of the application, Kibler signed an agreement containing exculpatory language which stated that the holder assumes all risks of injury and releases Blue Knob from all liability.
- The release document specifically listed 'ruts' and 'bumps' as inherent risks of skiing.
- On December 21, 2014, Kibler was skiing at Blue Knob on an open slope.
- While traversing the slope, Kibler encountered trenches, which were later identified as having been caused by an ATV operated by a resort employee.
- When Kibler's skis hit these trenches, he fell and sustained fractures to his left tibia and fibula.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick and Kathryn Kibler filed a civil complaint sounding in negligence against Blue Knob Recreation, Inc. and Blue Knob Resort, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County (trial court).
- Following discovery, the defendants (Blue Knob) filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The plaintiffs (Kiblers) also filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Kiblers' complaint with prejudice.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
- The Kiblers, as appellants, filed a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
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 doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk, as codified in the Pennsylvania Skier's Responsibility Act, and a validly executed exculpatory release bar a skier's negligence claim against a ski resort for injuries sustained from ruts created by a resort-operated all-terrain-vehicle (ATV)?
Opinions:
Majority - Ford Elliott, P.J.E.
No. The doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk and the signed exculpatory release bar the skier's negligence claim. The court's reasoning proceeded in two parts. First, under the Pennsylvania Skier's Responsibility Act, skiers voluntarily assume the 'inherent risks' of the sport. Citing persuasive authority from New York, the court held that ruts and variations in terrain are inherent risks of downhill skiing, regardless of whether they are natural or man-made, such as those caused by a resort's ATV. Since Kibler was engaged in downhill skiing, he assumed the risk of encountering these ruts as a matter of law. Second, the exculpatory release Kibler signed was valid and enforceable. It did not contravene public policy, it governed a private recreational activity, and it was not a contract of adhesion because skiing is a voluntary activity. The language was enforceable because it was conspicuous, with a capitalized heading calling attention to the release, and specifically mentioned 'ruts,' which encompasses the 'trenches' Kibler encountered. Kibler's failure to read the contract does not invalidate it, as he had a duty to do so. Finally, the resort's conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence or recklessness, which would have voided the release; it was, at most, ordinary negligence, for which the release is a valid defense.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the legal protections for ski resorts in Pennsylvania by broadly interpreting what constitutes an 'inherent risk' under the Skier's Responsibility Act. By including hazards created by the resort's own maintenance activities (like ATV ruts) within the scope of risks assumed by skiers, the court makes it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to succeed in negligence actions. The ruling reinforces that validly executed, conspicuous liability waivers for recreational activities are highly effective shields against claims of ordinary negligence. Future plaintiffs will face a high bar, needing to demonstrate that the resort's conduct rose to the level of gross negligence or recklessness to overcome these defenses.
Unlock the full brief for Kibler v. Blue Knob Recreation, Inc.