Miller v. Arnal Corp.
129 Ariz. 484, 632 P.2d 987, 1981 Ariz. App. LEXIS 488 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who voluntarily begins a rescue effort is not liable for terminating that effort unless their partial performance either increases the risk of harm to the person in peril or causes the person (or others on their behalf) to rely on the undertaking to their detriment. A corporation cannot be held liable for interfering with its own rescue attempt when a supervisor directs subordinate employees to cease their efforts, as this is considered an internal decision by the entity not to act.
Facts:
- Clint Miller and five companions were hiking on Humphrey’s Peak when a severe storm struck their campsite in December 1972.
- Miller suffered from severe exposure and frostbite, rendering him unable to descend the mountain.
- Four of Miller's companions hiked down to the Snow Bowl ski area, owned by Arnal Corporation, to seek assistance.
- The companions informed Danny Rich, an Arnal Corporation employee and assistant director of the ski patrol, of Miller's predicament.
- Rich and other ski patrol members volunteered and began gathering equipment for a rescue, planning to use the resort's chair lift to ascend the mountain.
- Rich's supervisor, mountain manager Dave Kuntzleman, refused to allow the ski patrol to use the chair lift, citing dangerous high winds and the need for the patrol to remain on duty for skiers.
- Rich had already contacted the Coconino County Sheriff’s search and rescue unit, and the actions of Arnal Corporation did not delay or hinder the county's separate rescue effort.
- By the time the county rescuers reached Miller the following morning, his companion, Allison Clay, had frozen to death, and Miller had suffered severe frostbite resulting in the amputation of his toes and fingers.
Procedural Posture:
- Clint Miller filed a lawsuit against Arnal Corporation in the trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Arnal Corporation.
- Miller filed a post-trial motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Miller, as appellant, appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial to the intermediate appellate court, with Arnal Corporation as the appellee.
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 ski resort operator incur liability for unreasonably terminating a rescue effort initiated by its employees when the termination does not place the imperiled person in a worse position and a supervisor's decision to halt the effort is considered an internal corporate action?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Connor, Presiding Judge
No, a ski resort operator does not incur liability under these circumstances. Liability for terminating a gratuitous undertaking to render aid arises only if the rescuer's actions put the victim in a worse position than before the undertaking began. Here, there was no evidence that Clint Miller or his companions relied on the ski patrol's aborted rescue attempt to their detriment, as they did not forgo any other opportunities for assistance. In fact, the ski patrol immediately contacted the official county search and rescue unit, which was not delayed or impeded by Arnal Corporation's decision. Furthermore, the corporation cannot be held liable for interfering with a rescue under a third-party theory. The decision by a corporate supervisor (Kuntzleman) to countermand the actions of subordinate employees (the ski patrol) is an internal act of the corporation itself; the corporation, as a single entity, simply chose not to undertake the rescue. It cannot be held liable for interfering with itself.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law principle that there is no general duty to rescue a stranger in peril. It narrowly construes the exception for voluntary undertakings, holding that liability for abandonment requires a concrete showing of detrimental reliance or an actual worsening of the victim's position, not merely the termination of a rescue plan. The court's analysis of corporate liability is significant, as it treats a corporation's internal command structure as a single actor, thereby preventing claims that one employee interfered with another. This provides legal protection for businesses making risk-management decisions in emergency situations, allowing supervisors to halt employee actions without creating corporate liability for "interference."
