Merrill v. Sugarloaf Mountain Corp.
2000 Me. LEXIS 22, 2000 ME 16, 745 A.2d 378 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Maine's ski safety statute, an injured skier suing a ski area operator for negligence bears the burden of proving the operator was negligent and that this negligence caused the injury. The ski area operator, not the skier, bears the burden of proving the affirmative defense that the injury was caused by a risk inherent in the sport of skiing.
Facts:
- On December 26, 1993, James Merrill and his friends went skiing at Sugarloaf Mountain, which was owned and operated by Sugarloaf Mountain Corporation.
- They skied down the Skidder Trail, which was intersected by a man-made water bar, a ditch-like depression designed to channel water across the trail.
- Because it was early in the winter season, the water bar had not completely filled with snow and remained a wet depression across the trail.
- Sugarloaf had marked the water bar with two crossed bamboo poles placed directly over the depression.
- There was approximately 25 feet of open, skiable trail to the left of the poles and approximately 15 feet to the right.
- Merrill skied to the right of the bamboo poles, assuming the path was clear.
- Merrill entered the washed-out portion of the water bar, lost control, fell, and shattered his right leg.
Procedural Posture:
- James Merrill sued Sugarloaf Mountain Corporation for negligence in the Superior Court (Penobscot County), the state's trial court.
- Initially, the trial court granted summary judgment for Sugarloaf, but on appeal (Merrill I), the Supreme Judicial Court vacated that judgment and sent the case back for trial.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of Sugarloaf Mountain Corporation.
- The trial court denied Merrill’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
- Merrill (as appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, the state's highest court.
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 a skier bringing a negligence claim against a ski area operator under the applicable Maine statute bear the burden of proving that their injuries were not caused by a risk inherent in the sport of skiing?
Opinions:
Majority - Alexander, J.
No. A skier suing a ski area operator for negligence does not bear the burden of proving their injuries were not caused by an inherent risk of skiing; rather, inherent risk is an affirmative defense for which the defendant ski area operator bears the burden of proof. The plain language of the controlling statute, 26 M.R.S.A. § 488, states that a skier is 'deemed to have assumed the risk ... unless the injury ... was actually caused by the negligent operation or maintenance of the ski area.' This language requires the plaintiff-skier to affirmatively prove negligence and causation, but it does not add the extra element of disproving an inherent risk. The court contrasted this with a Vermont statute that creates a 'primary assumption of the risk' defense. The court reasoned that when a defendant affirmatively claims that an injury was caused by a factor other than its own negligence—such as an inherent risk—the defendant bears the burden of proving that assertion. Therefore, the trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury that Merrill had a 'double burden' to both prove Sugarloaf's negligence and disprove that his injury was caused by an inherent risk.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the allocation of burdens of proof in negligence cases governed by Maine's recreational safety statutes. It establishes that 'inherent risk' is an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant must plead and prove it, rather than a part of the plaintiff's prima facie case that the plaintiff must disprove. This lowers the evidentiary hurdle for injured plaintiffs to survive summary judgment and reach a jury, as they are not required to prove a negative. The ruling aligns the assumption of risk defense in this context with the standard treatment of other affirmative defenses, placing the burden of persuasion on the party asserting the defense.
